On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 02:27:38PM +1000, Sam Bobroff wrote:
quoted
- It is very much intended to allow The "(foo)" after the "Notes"
label to show which notes ref the note comes from, because there
can be more than one notes refs that annotate the same commit.
Right, that makes perfect sense to me when it's being output locally.
But the ref names are local to my git repo and there is no reaason why
they should be meaningful or even known to the recipients of the patch
email.
I can see how your notes names might not be of interest to others. But I
can also see how they _could_ be. For instance, if you kept test result
annotations in a notes ref, you would want to mark them as such.
The idea of the current output is that you'd put general text into
"refs/notes/commits" (which shows up only as "Notes:"). And if you are
putting notes in another ref, you have some reason to do so, which
implies that it's worth showing that they're not in the default ref.
I grant that there are reasons to do so which might not be worth showing
(e.g., you might be pushing and fetching refs, and keep some hierarchy).
But I don't think "are we emailing them" is a robust determiner of "are
they worth showing". So this probably needs to be a separate option,
rather than tied to the output format.
Or possibly there should be a naming convention (e.g., that everything
that ends in "/commits" doesn't have its name shown, which would allow
multiple hierarchies). It's hard to say without knowing the reason you
chose a non-default refname in the first place.
-Peff