Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2008, #03; Sun, 21)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 23, 2008, 16:38 UTC
Message-ID: <20081223163811.GA25658@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0812231725270.30769@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 05:26:01PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> > I haven't had much time to really look at this closely, and I probably 
> > won't for another week or so due to the holidays. But from my cursory 
> > examination, I think I want to propose something that is a bit 
> > different.
> 
> Could you be a bit more, like, specific, please?

The way that GIT_NOTES_REF and core.notesref work aren't what I had in mind. I imagined something more amenable to having lots of different metadata notes. Refer to the other messages I have written on "naming".

I don't want to hold up progress, so if people want those patches in "next", then go for it. What I really meant by my email was that I think my suggested changes might be simpler to see as a re-roll rather than patches on top, but since I can't work on them for a while, I didn't want Junio to take silence as "OK, nobody has complained, so it's time for this to graduate to next." But again, if people are ready to start playing with this and building on top of it, then I don't want to stand in the way.

-Peff