Hello, Junio. On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:01:25PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Wouldn't it be more useful to have repo-updated-with-these-commits > > hook instead rather than putting more logic on note handling? > > > >> and scan the commits, just like you scan what you fetched. And when > >> you update the reverse mapping notes tree, the commit to record that > >> notes update can record the tip of the above traversal. > > I do not consider what you do in notes/xref-* "more logic on note > handling" in the sense that the logic is part of "notes" API. > > The moment you decided to reserve one hierarchy in refs/notes/ and > designed what the mapping recorded there means, you designed a new > trailer-xrefs API. It is a part of that API how blobs stored in > your refs/notes/xref-cherry-picks are formatted and what they mean. > It's the same thing---it is also part of your API how the log > message for recording commits in that hierarchy is formatted and > what it means. Hmmm... I see. I still have a bit of trouble seeing why doing it that way is better tho. Wouldn't new-object-hook be simpler? They'll achieve about the same thing but one would need to keep the states in two places. > > As long as we can keep the reverse rference notes consistent, wouldn't > > amend propagation just consume them? > > Yes. Would that mean you do not need the notes/xref-* series we are > seeing here, and instead (re)use what Stefan's series, which already > needs to have access to and record the information anyway, records? Oh yeah, for sure. Didn't know Stefan was doing something similar. Will continue on the other reply. Thanks. -- tejun
