Johan Herland <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > +External data format:: > + The data content for the note was already supplied by a prior > + `blob` command. The frontend just needs to connect it to the > + commit that is to be annotated. > ++ > +.... > + 'N' SP <dataref> SP <committish> LF > +.... > ++ > +Here `<dataref>` can be either a mark reference (`:<idnum>`) > +set by a prior `blob` command, or a full 40-byte SHA-1 of an > +existing Git blob object. > + > +Inline data format:: > + The data content for the note has not been supplied yet. > + The frontend wants to supply it as part of this modify > + command. > ++ > +.... > + 'N' SP 'inline' SP <committish> LF > + data > +.... > ++ > +See below for a detailed description of the `data` command. > + > +In both formats `<committish>` is any of the commit specification > +expressions also accepted by `from` (see above). Doesn't this make fast-import language incapable of add notes to anything other than commits? As far as I remember, there is no such limitation in the underlying data structure on git notes, even though the git-notes sample Porcelain might have such a restriction. We recently hit a similar unintended limitation that we regret in the fast-import language, didn't we? Although personally I do not think it is a big deal if we cannot tag or add notes to trees, I am pointing it out in case other people care. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html