On Thursday 21 January 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stephen Boyd <bebarino@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Johan Herland wrote:
> >> The new --notes option triggers a call to gc_notes(), which removes
> >> note objects that reference non-existing objects.
> >
> > Shouldn't notes be unconditionally garbage collected? Or maybe there's
> > a reason why notes should be treated differently that isn't written
> > here.
>
> A few thoughts, inspired by this patch, but on other things around
> "notes":
>
> - This is more about pruning notes regarding objects that are no longer
> availabe from _the tip_ of the notes tree. It doesn't run (and I am
> not suggesting to make it it to run) filter-branch to eradicate all
> such stale notes from the notes commit ancestry, so in that sense this
> is not really a garbage collection.
I've removed this patch from the next iteration of the series...
> - We would want to have "notes prune" subcommand that lets us do the
> pruning without all the other "gc" operation. "git gc" would of
> course call the same underlying code "notes prune" would use if we want
> to be able to trigger "notes prune" from it.
...and replaced it with "git notes prune".
> - Because there is no public interface to list objects that are
> annotated with the most recent notes tree, the only thing this pruning
> affects is the look-up overhead of "log --show-notes". As such, it
> might be better to later add tree rebalancing in "notes prune" and at
> that point, it will become even less about garbage collection and more
> about performance ("notes optimize?").
>
> - Do we want to have a public interface to list objects that are
> annotated with notes? "git notes" probably deserves a bit more
> subcommands other than "(edit|show)" to help users, e.g. "list" and
> "remove".
Added in the next iteration of the series.
> - If this were "notes optimize" (this is just me thinking aloud),
> perhaps we would want to do this at some key places (e.g. when you
> automatically rebalance the tree).
There is currently no explicit rebalancing of the tree. The only thing "git
notes prune" does, is call remove_note() for all notes referencing
unreachable objects. Instead the tree is always kept in "balance" by
remove_note() calling note_tree_consolidate() for the part of the tree
affected by the removed note.
...Johan
--
Johan Herland, <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
www.herland.net
--
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