Re: [RFD] Notes are independent: proposal for new notes implementation

From: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 9, 2010, 20:26 UTC
Message-ID: <32541b131002091226p58b40237j40d3cd6cfaa91df5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201002092105.25636.jnareb@gmail.com>

2010/2/9 Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>:

> But
> what if the answer was to change implementation, decoupling history of
> notes from each other, and keeping history of each note separate.

Congratulations, you've re-invented CVS! :)

Seriously though, I'm not sure what problems this solved. Notes that are related to each other can (and perhaps should) be in the same notes commit history; notes that are not related to each other can exist in separate histories with their own ref.

Show 5 quoted lines

> This means for example that if in repository A somebody annotated
> commits foo and bar creating notes in this order, and in repository B
> somebody annotated bar and foo (creating notes in reverse order), then
> merging those changes would require generating merge commit even if
> those notes are identical.

That's a feature; now you have the true history of your notes, which is good for all the same reasons it's good in git.

Of course this whole line of reasoning could lead to questions like "can I rebase my notes history?" and "what about rebase -i" and "can I maintain a notes patch queue" and so on.

Have fun,

Avery