Re: [PATCH] Introduce light weight commit annotations
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jun 10, 2007, 18:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706101952180.4059@racer.site>
- In-Reply-To
- <200706101514.14954.johan@herland.net>
Hi,
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Johan Herland wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On Saturday 09 June 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > With the provided script, edit-commit-annotations, you can add > > after-the-fact annotations to commits, which will be shown by the log > > if the config variable core.showannotations is set. > > > > The annotations are tracked in a new ref, refs/annotations/commits, in > > the same fan-out style as .git/objects/??/*, only that they only exist > > in the object database now. > > Very interesting. I have to say that after having played around with > it a couple of minutes, I really like it. Needs some polishing here > and there (i.e. cleaning up the COMMIT_ANNOTATION.NNNN* files), but > it is a very good proof-of-concept.
Thanks. I composed it in a hurry, since I wanted it to go out before I took my flight home.
Show 7 quoted lines
> > I have the hunch that this will be relatively fast and scalable, > > since the tree objects are sorted by name (the name being the > > object name of the to-be-annotated commit). > > I think I agree with your hunch, although I initially thought that your > solution was a bit heavy on the number of objects created. But, hey, git > is _designed_ to handle massive amounts of objects. :)
Besides, these tree objects should delta really well, being almost as efficient as having only one tree object to begin with.
Show 16 quoted lines
> > diff --git a/config.c b/config.c
> > index 58d3ed5..34db9b2 100644
> > --- a/config.c
> > +++ b/config.c
> > @@ -356,6 +356,11 @@ int git_default_config(const char *var, const char *value)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > + if (!strcmp(var, "core.showannotaions")) {
> > + show_commit_annotations = git_config_bool(var, value);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
>
> Small typo here. "core.showannotaions" should be "core.showannotations",
> I guess.Yep. I tested it with "core.shownotes", but decided before sending the patch that the name would be inconsistent with the rest of the code.
However, as I suggested later, I could imagine that an even better way could be to have "core.annotationsRef", overrideable by GIT_ANNOTATIONS_REF, which could possibly even be a list of refs.
BTW I am not married to calling it "annotations". If you like "notes" better, I'm fine with it.
Ciao, Dscho