On 2007-05-01 11:10:47 +0200, Marco Costalba wrote:
> On 5/1/07, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I'm OK with this patch as long as tools like qgit don't rely on
> > this ref.
>
> It's OK for me. A recent qgit already filters out content of
> refs/bases to reduce visual 'noise'.
Good.
> The only StGit data read directly are patches sha's; qgit walks
> recursively all the files called "top" under directory tree
>
> <git dir>/patches/<current branch>
>
> to get sha list of each applied and unapplied patch in one go. This
> is much faster then calling "stg id <patch name>" for all the
> patches.
Hmm. These are on my kill list too. :-)
The patch tops are already recorded in
refs/patches/<branch>/<patchname> to keep them from being garbage
collected, so these top files are redundant. But it isn't _that_ bad,
so if removing them would break qgit, I guess I could try to restrain
myself. At least all the other metadata is fair game. :-)
(But if I were you, I'd look for the patches under patches/refs
anyway; they _have_ to be there to survive garbage collection, so no
amount of stgit refactoring will break qgit.)
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.treskal.com/kalle
-
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