On Tuesday 30 March 2010, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:25:22PM +0200, Johan Herland wrote: > > > This is actually inspired by Jeff's novel notes use. I think > > > there are use cases where a notes log makes sense (notes on > > > commits) and those where it does not (metadata/textconv). In both > > > cases having a reflog is useful. So, the next step is really to > > > allow notes trees without history, which also takes care of the > > > pruning issue. I know how to do this, I just have to decide about > > > the configuration options. > > > > I noticed that Jeff's proof-of-concept wrote notes trees without > > making notes commits, and although it seemed like a bug at first, > > it does - as you say - provide a rather nice way to store notes > > trees without history. > > No, it was very much intentional. > > However, I think the next iteration will wrap the tree in an actual > commit, but just keep each commit parentless. That will provide a > nice spot for metadata like the cache validity information. Agreed. > I like the idea of having a reflog, just because you could use it to > salvage an old cache if you were playing around with your helper's > options (or debugging your helper :) ). The usual 90-day expiration > time is perhaps too long, though. Yes, 90 days as a default might be excessive, but you can always override it with a "git gc --prune=now"... > > Note that I haven't explicitly designed the notes feature with this > > in mind, so it's wise to add testcases for expected behaviour once > > we start use history-less notes trees. > > > > Thinking about it, the notes code itself (notes.h/.c) only wants a > > notes _tree_ object, so will probably work fine with history-less > > notes trees. But builtin/notes.c with its public commit_notes() > > function may be another story... > > I was planning on using my own cache-specific helper instead of > commit_notes() anyway, so that shouldn't be a problem. By using a > commit wrapper, I don't think any of the display code should be > confused (since they need to handle the case of a root note commit > anyway). Once I have some example trees, I can poke at them with the > existing notes code and see how they behave (and how we _want_ them > to behave, since I'm not sure yet what sort of cache introspection, > if any, would be useful). Looking forward to your patches. :) ...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