Re: [PATCH 00/15] git-note: A mechanisim for providing free-form after-the-fact annotations on commits

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: May 28, 2007, 16:28 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0705280924410.26602@woody.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <200705281254.23297.johan@herland.net>

On Mon, 28 May 2007, Johan Herland wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> 
> >  - This will probably scale horribly badly if you have tens of thousands 
> >    of notes, even when they are packed. Do we care?
> 
> I can't see why the current implementation would scale any worse than an
> equivalent number of (annotated/signed) tags. But then again, the tag
> system might not have been designed with tens of thousands of tag objects
> in mind. :)

Right. I was more thinking that this "notes" thing could potentially be a very useful thing for some random workflow - using notes to indicate that some commit has been vetted by somebody, for example (ie adding things like "Acked-by:" after-the-fact, which happens for the kernel).

And once you start using notes for something like that, I think you're going to end up with a set of notes that grows with history, and potentially grows quite quickly.

So I can see people having thousands of tags, but usually you only tag releases. In contrast, I can see notes being used not as a "per release" thing, but closer to a "per commit" thing. And that kind of worries me, I can see workflows where you end up having tons and tons of notes.

But hey, maybe I just worry unnecessarily.

		Linus