> Quoting Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] git-note: A mechanisim for providing free-form after-the-fact annotations on commits
>
> > Quoting Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] git-note: A mechanisim for providing free-form after-the-fact annotations on commits
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 27 May 2007, Johan Herland wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been working on combining tag objects and --decorate into a useful
> > > proof-of-concept that provides the after-the-fact commit annotations I
> > > requested above, and here's the result:
> >
> > Ok, looks fine to me. I do have a few questions:
> > - why don't you just let people name their notes, the same way we name
> > tags (and then actually using it as the note name?)
> >
> > Putting them in the refs/notes/ filesystem by their SHA1 seems a bit
> > wasteful, and it would seem that it could be quite nice to name the
> > notes some way?
> >
> > - This will probably scale horribly badly if you have tens of thousands
> > of notes, even when they are packed. Do we care?
>
> Maybe note names could include the object they point to?
> Would this help with the scalability too (i.e. only get
> names for objects we want)?
Hmm, I just noticed there's refs/notes/{object-sha}/{note-sha}
that does exactly that. So - this seems to be clear to everyone
else, but I seem to miss the reason why does this not scale well?
We can just get the notes for objects we pull, right?
--
MST
-
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
