On Monday 28 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I can't see why the current implementation would scale any worse than an > > equivalent number of (annotated/signed) tags. But then again, the tag > > system might not have been designed with tens of thousands of tag objects > > in mind. :) > > Right. I was more thinking that this "notes" thing could potentially be a > very useful thing for some random workflow - using notes to indicate that > some commit has been vetted by somebody, for example (ie adding things > like "Acked-by:" after-the-fact, which happens for the kernel). > > And once you start using notes for something like that, I think you're > going to end up with a set of notes that grows with history, and > potentially grows quite quickly. > > So I can see people having thousands of tags, but usually you only tag > releases. In contrast, I can see notes being used not as a "per release" > thing, but closer to a "per commit" thing. And that kind of worries me, I > can see workflows where you end up having tons and tons of notes. > > But hey, maybe I just worry unnecessarily. I still don't see what makes note objects inherently more expensive than commit objects. Except for the refs, of course, but we're getting rid of those (at least replacing them with a more efficient reverse mapping). And even if we _do_ end up with 10 notes per commit, we could always design some kind of "supernote" that lets "git-gc" pack all the notes related to a commit into _one_ object. Have fun! ...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
