Re: Regarding "git log" on "git series" metadata

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 4, 2016, 20:47 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD2+A0MUKazAfSwCvv61TJRPuoOzH5EkqcrBOUi4TcuoDw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqa8dfdt6y.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

>
> Imagine we invent a new tree entry type, "gitref", that is similar
> to "gitlink" in that it can record a commit object name in a tree,
> but unlike "gitlink" it does imply reachability.  And you do not add
> phony parents to your commit object.  A tree that has "gitref"s in
> it is about annotating the commits in the same repository (e.g. the
> tree references two commits, "base" and "tip", to point into a slice
> of the main history).  And it is perfectly sensible for such a
> pointer to imply reachability---after all it serves different
> purposes from "gitlink".

The more I think about this (and also about how to limit ref advertisements as recently discussed in https://public-inbox.org/git/20161024132932.i42rqn2vlpocqmkq@sigill.intra.peff.net/), the more I think about Shawn's RefTree:

https://public-inbox.org/git/CAJo=hJvnAPNAdDcAAwAvU9C4RVeQdoS3Ev9WTguHx4fD0V_nOg@mail.gmail.com/

Couldn't a RefTree be used to store refs that point to the base commit, the tip commit and the blob that contains the cover letter, and maybe also a ref pointing to the RefTree of the previous version of the series?