On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 02:27:38PM +1000, Sam Bobroff wrote: > > - It is very much intended to allow The "(foo)" after the "Notes" > > label to show which notes ref the note comes from, because there > > can be more than one notes refs that annotate the same commit. > > Right, that makes perfect sense to me when it's being output locally. > > But the ref names are local to my git repo and there is no reaason why > they should be meaningful or even known to the recipients of the patch > email. I can see how your notes names might not be of interest to others. But I can also see how they _could_ be. For instance, if you kept test result annotations in a notes ref, you would want to mark them as such. The idea of the current output is that you'd put general text into "refs/notes/commits" (which shows up only as "Notes:"). And if you are putting notes in another ref, you have some reason to do so, which implies that it's worth showing that they're not in the default ref. I grant that there are reasons to do so which might not be worth showing (e.g., you might be pushing and fetching refs, and keep some hierarchy). But I don't think "are we emailing them" is a robust determiner of "are they worth showing". So this probably needs to be a separate option, rather than tied to the output format. Or possibly there should be a naming convention (e.g., that everything that ends in "/commits" doesn't have its name shown, which would allow multiple hierarchies). It's hard to say without knowing the reason you chose a non-default refname in the first place. -Peff
