On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, David Kastrup wrote:
David Härdeman <david@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:53:01PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach David Härdeman <david@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2007.09.19.2016 +0100]:
But I agree, if any changes were made to git, I'd advocate adding
arbitrary attributes to files (much like xattrs) in name=value
pairs, then any extended metadata could be stored in those
attributes and external scripts/tools could use them in some way
that makes sense...and also make sure to only update them when it
makes sense.
So where would those metdata be stored in your opinion?
I'm not sufficiently versed in the internals of git to have an
informed opinion :)
I think we have something like a length count for file names in index
and/or tree. We could just put the (sorted) attributes after a NUL
byte in the file name and include them in the count. It would also
make those artificially longer file names work more or less when
sorting them for deltification.
the problem with this is dealing with the attributes outside of git
(especially when the filesystem can't store the attributes nativly,
specificly including things like owners when not running as root)
this is one of the reasons for talking about useing a seperate file for
the attributes (the other being the ability to minimize the impact to
git-core of tracking attributes)
David Lang
