Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl
- From
- Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 16, 2007, 11:08 UTC
- Message-ID
- <46C43015.7080804@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <46C42DCB.1060502@gmail.com>
On 08/16/2007 12:58 PM, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 08/15/2007 03:52 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote:
Show 33 quoted lines
>> If you were going to do that I'd just suggest making git aware of the >> "user.*" extended attributes and having it save those into the git >> repo along with the permission data. > > Am looking at it but am not so sure that's a very good idea. I guess > it'd be largely okay-ish to require the repo to be on a filesystem that > supports EAs for this feature to work, but keeping the attributes intact > over file system operations seems not all that easy (yet). Having not > used EAs before I may be missing something but my version of "cp" for > example (GNU coreutils 6.9) appears to not copy them. Nor do they seem > to survive a trip through GNU tar 1.16.1. EAs appear to not be very > useful unless every single tool supports them -- a repo should be > resistant against simple operations like that. > > Googling around, I see subversion already has this and calls the > meta-data "properties" (svn propset/get and friends). It uses a few > properties itself, such as the svn:executable property (which I saw is > also the only permission bit git keeps) and svn:ignore, which serves the > same role as the .gitignore files for git. Both those would fit into > this scheme nicely for git as well, if git were to do something similar > and reserve for example the "git.*" namespace for internal use. > > Junio (and others), do you have an opinion on this? If these properties > are versioned themselves such as in svn I believe it's a decidedly > non-trivial addition (and I'm a complete git newbie) but to me, they > look incredibly useful, both for the original "maintainers" properties > (and anyone else one would want to come up with such as summary > properties and author/license stuff) and even for git internal reasons > such as sketched above. > > The git-blame thing as sketched before by Linus would never be able to > point out mailing lists, or general lists of "interested parties" for > example, but these properties can do anything...
The svn implemention is that a single property is free-form text. As such, I guess a property would be just another file, although one that only lives in the index and is linked from the file/directory it is a property of.
Perhaps that immediately suggests an implementation to someone already familiar with git internals?
Rene.