On Sunday 10 June 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 01:16:45AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote: > > On Sunday 10 June 2007, Steven Grimm wrote: > > > Being able to specify relationships between commits after the fact seems > > > like a very useful facility. > > > > > > Does it make sense to have type information to record what the > > > relationship between two objects means? Without that, it seems like > > > it'll be hard to build much of a tool set on top of this feature, since > > > no two tools that made use of it could unambiguously query just their > > > own softrefs. > > > > Actually MadCoder/Pierre had a similar idea on IRC. He wanted to separate > > softrefs into namespaces, so that softrefs for tags could live in a > > different place than softrefs associated with his "gits" bug tracker. > > > > I haven't thought very much about this, but it's certainly possible to do > > something like this. What do the rest of y'all think? > > Well, if we're two with the same idea, it's a good one, no ? :) > > In fact, the namespace idea like I told you on IRC isn't _that_ > brilliant. But I'm sure recording a softref with: > > <from_sha> <to_sha> <token> > > token would help classify the softref. And I'm sure we'll end up with: > > <from_sha> <to_sha> <token> <flags> > > with the flags to say what behaviour (e.g.) the reachability resolver > should have wrt that link ? Interesting. But I'm not sure I want to give up the fixed-length softref records as I imagine it makes the lookup and processing _much_ faster. ...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
