Re: Refactoring the tag object; Introducing soft references (softrefs); Git 'notes' (take 2)

On Sunday 10 June 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 01:16:45AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:

quoted

On Sunday 10 June 2007, Steven Grimm wrote:

quoted

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, [off-list ref]
www.herland.net