From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] several notes refs, post-rewrite, notes rewriting Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:32:53 +0100 Message-ID: <201002220132.53455.trast@student.ethz.ch> References: <7vr5oeazhd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , Johannes Sixt , Johan Herland To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 22 02:42:26 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NjMEj-0001Tz-Rw for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:33:22 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754040Ab0BVAdR (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:33:17 -0500 Received: from gwse.ethz.ch ([129.132.178.238]:44315 "EHLO gwse.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753796Ab0BVAdQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:33:16 -0500 Received: from CAS00.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.234) by gws01.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.238) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.234.1; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:33:15 +0100 Received: from thomas.localnet (217.162.250.31) by mail.ethz.ch (129.132.178.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.234.1; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:32:55 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.0 (Linux/2.6.31.12-0.1-desktop; KDE/4.4.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <7vr5oeazhd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Monday 22 February 2010 01:25:02 Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Rast writes: > > > core.notesRef should be in that list > > implicitly, and I think the natural position if it is unsorted would > > be: first. > > I think that is a sane thing to do, and then any additional ones can come > after that first one, in the order specified by displayRef. Isn't that > what you are doing, no? Yes, I just wanted to spell out why I originally decided for the sorted instead of user-ordered way: > > However, that means that changing core.notesRef or GIT_NOTES_REF > > can shuffle around your notes, which I thought would be confusing. But that wasn't a strong preference at all, so doing it like you suggested (and like the code is in v4) is fine by me. -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch