Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2010, #02; Sun, 04)

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Apr 6, 2010, 01:12 UTC
Message-ID: <4BBA8A8C.2080905@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vtyrr6nes.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 05.04.2010 03:14:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Here are the topics that have been cooking.  Commits prefixed with '-' are
> only in 'pu' while commits prefixed with '+' are in 'next'.  The ones
> marked with '.' do not appear in any of the integration branches, but I am
> still holding onto them.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------

Show 7 quoted lines

> * mg/notes-reflog (2010-03-29) 2 commits
>  - refs.c: Write reflogs for notes just like for branch heads
>  - t3301-notes: Test the creation of reflog entries
> 
> Implementation is trivially correct; I am unsure if "notes" tree wants
> reflog in the first place, though.  Please convince me and I'll move it
> to 'next' soon, aiming for -rc0 or -rc1 at the latest.

I think that Jeff's impressive textconv caching is only the first of many uses of notes where the notes ref is not a branch head with continuously added history, but where the ref is being rewritten over and over again. Also, people may rewrite their refs/notes/commits when experimenting with remote notes trees.

In both cases, I deem the reflog "backup" a useful safety measure (just as for other refs), and the automatic purging of the reflog provides just the appropriate housekeeping.

Michael