Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-series: track changes to a patch series over time
- From
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
- Date
- Jul 29, 2016, 13:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20160729130054.GD4340@x>
- In-Reply-To
- <20160729124443.GA3686@salo>
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 01:44:44PM +0100, Richard Ipsum wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 04:04:26AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > I hope to use git notes with git-series in the future, by putting > > another gitlink under the git-series for notes related to the series. > > I'd intended that for more persistent notes; putting them in the series > > solves some of the problems related to notes refs, pushing/pulling, and > > collaboration. Using notes for review comments makes sense as well, > > whether in a series or in a separate ref. > > Sounds interesting, can you explain how this works in more detail?
The tree within a git-series commit includes a blob "cover" for the cover letter, a gitlink "base" for the base commit, and a gitlink "series" for the top of the series. I could add a gitlink "notes", which acts like a notes ref; then, each version of the series would have its own notes ref. As with the series, git-series would track the "history of history"; since git-notes themselves use git history to store a set of notes, git-series would store the history of the notes. So if you add, remove, or change a note, git-series would track that as a change to the notes ref. If you merge/rebase/etc the notes ref to merge notes, git-series would track that too. A different series would have a different set of notes, so you wouldn't be limited to one notes ref per repository.
This doesn't solve the problem of merging notes, but it *does* mean you have a full history of the changes to notes, not just the notes themselves.
Something similar might work for the Gerrit notesdb.
Show 11 quoted lines
> > > I've been considering taking the perl-notedb prototype and writing > > > a C library for it with bindings for other languages (i.e. Rust). > > > > A C library based on libgit2 seems like a good idea; ideally the > > bindings could interoperate with git2-rs. (Alternatively, Rust can > > *export* a C interface, so you could write directly with git2-rs. :) ) > > Certainly a fair alternative, though it may arguably be safer to write > the C and export to other languages, as cool as Rust looks it's not > established the way C is, so may be a slightly riskier foundation, > in my view.
I was mostly joking there. Rust makes that potentially reasonable, unlike most languages that can consume but not easily provide a C API, but that doesn't make it the ideal solution quite yet. :)
> And ofcourse in C we have native access to libgit2.
Right.
Show 5 quoted lines
> > One of the items on my long-term TODO list is a completely federated > > GitHub; I've been looking at other aspects of that, but federated > > reviews/comments/etc seem critical to that as well. > > I agree.