From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:52:18 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCHv10 08/11] Notes API: get_note(): Return the note annotating the given object Message-ID: <7vk4wy1p8d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <1260185254-1523-9-git-send-email-johan@herland.net> Johan Herland writes: > Created by a simple cleanup and rename of lookup_notes(). > > Signed-off-by: Johan Herland > --- > notes.c | 15 ++++++++------- > notes.h | 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/notes.c b/notes.c > index 79bfa24..110404a 100644 > --- a/notes.c > +++ b/notes.c > @@ -379,12 +379,13 @@ void add_note(const unsigned char *object_sha1, const unsigned char *note_sha1) > note_tree_insert(&root_node, 0, l, PTR_TYPE_NOTE); > } > > -static unsigned char *lookup_notes(const unsigned char *object_sha1) > +const unsigned char *get_note(const unsigned char *object_sha1) Is there a need to find "note for this commit in the set of notes 3 days ago"? IOW, reading note for the given commit not from the tip of the history of the refs/notes/commits but from say refs/notes/commits~4? Similarly, is there a need to ask for a history of notes for a given commit, something like "git log refs/notes/commit/$this_commit" in a world without any fanout? Obviously, "there is no need because..." is the best answer I'd be happy with. "There may be in the future but we haven't identified a good use case and we don't implement what we do not need now." is also perfectly acceptable. IOW, I am not suggesting to change it---I just want to know how much thought went in before deciding to implement the interface this way.