Hi,

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Johan Herland wrote:

quoted text
> On Sunday 10 June 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Maybe you first think A and B are related and then later change your 
> > mind.  Should "softref" relationships be versioned?
> 
> Intriguing idea. Not immediately sure how we would implement it 
> though...

Has my lightweight annotation patch reached you?

I like my approach better than yours, because it is

1) a way, way smaller patch, and
2) it automatically includes the versionability.

After thinking about it a little more (my plane was slow, and as a result 
I am allowed to spend 8 more hours in Paris), I think that a small but 
crucial change would make this thing even more useful:

Instead of having "core.showAnnotations" be a boolean config, it might be 
better to have "core.annotationsRef" instead, overrideable by the 
environment variable GIT_ANNOTATION_REF.

With this, you can have different refs for different kinds of annotations.

For example, some people might add bugtracker comments (even comments like 
"this commit was bad: introduced bug #798, solved by commit 9899fdadc.."). 
Those comments could live in refs/annotations/bugs. To see them, just say 

	GIT_ANNOTATION_REF=refs/annotations/bugs gitk

Voila.

I am quite certain that treating annotations as branches, containing 
fan-out directories for the reverse lookup. I am even quite certain that 
in most cases, a working-directory-less merging is possible for such 
annotations.

Ciao,
Dscho

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html