On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38:55AM -0600, Govind Salinas wrote: > This is my concern with keeping a history of the notes pseudo-branch. Let > me restate what you are saying with an example > > 1) on branch A commit a > 2) add note a` > 3) on branch B commit b > 4) add note b` > 5) on branch B commit c > 6) add note c` > 7) delete branch A > 8) gc after a time such that a is pruned > > Now either I will always have a note a` as an object forever even though > the only commit that points to it is gone or I have to re-write the history of > the notes branch from the point that it was added. Yes, that's correct. > Given this problem, is it really such a good idea to keep the history? I think so. Otherwise how will you push and pull notes? You won't even know which one is the more recent tree, let alone handle any merges caused by editing notes in two places. > On the other, other hand, pushing and pulling notes if a history is kept > will have to involve a lot of rebasing/merging. Depending on your workflow. It might just involve a lot of fast forwards if the note writer is in one place. > A possible solution is that notes are per-branch, > > refs/notes/heads/master > refs/notes/heads/foo/bar > refs/notes/remotes/baz/bang Sorry, I don't quite get it. You are asking for per-branch notes that keep history, or per-branch notes that don't keep history? If the former, then you haven't solved the cruft accumulation problem. You can get obsolete notes in your note history by rebasing on a branch that is long-running (which is OK as long as you haven't published _those particular_ commits). Or are you proposing to rebase and cleanup the notes history every time you do a destructive operation? If the latter, then I don't see how you've solved the push-pull and merge problem (which you need history for). But in either case, I think the solution is non-intuitive. If I annotate a commit, and then merge the commit from one branch to another, shouldn't the annotation stay? Really, I am not sure this is worth getting too concerned about. Since we are talking about cruft in the _history_ of the notes branch, it won't impact actual notes usage (which will always just deal with the most recent tree). So really we are talking about some uninteresting objects in the db, which wastes some space. In practice, I suspect this won't be that large because notes themselves are going to be relatively short and in many cases, repetitive (i.e., many annotations may have the same blob hash for several commits). And if it is a space problem, then the right solution is to periodically truncate the notes history by rewriting. -Peff -- 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
