From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:38:15 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gitweb: notes feature
Message-ID: <7vock0evs8.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <201002071341.36440.jnareb@gmail.com>

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:

> That is just bikeshedding, but I'd rather not use '@', which currently
> is used only for _reflog_ based revision specifiers: [<ref>]@{<date>},
> [<ref>]@{<n>}, @{-<n>}, for notes which are not reflog based.

Probably a nicer way to say the same thing is to avoid "reflog based"
which sounds like you are talking about an implementation detail.

A fundamental reason to favor your "bikeshedding" (I don't think it is a
bikeshedding---it is a sound argument against using "@{...}") is that the
at-brace notation applies to a ref, not to an arbitrary commit.  Applying
@{yesterday} to an arbitrary commit does not make any sense.

Notes are fundamenally metainformation about an _object_ [*1*] and are not
metainformation about refs.  Since whatever magic notation to denote notes
we choose wants to be applied to an arbitrary commit, it shouldn't be the
at-brace syntax.

[Footnote]

*1* Yes, I am aware of movements to misuse notes to annotate anything
after mapping it to a random SHA-1 value, but I think that is outside the
scope of notes.  Our design decision should be based on supporting the
primary use of annotating an object, and that might still keep such a use
working, in which case that would be an added bonus.  But our design
shouldn't be constrained by such a secondary use.