From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] notes: preserve object type given by "add -C"
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 13:58:23 +0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACsJy8AYwBdfywuOQ7t873Hc-Sjv3Fnx77s+1VmKWbSXts77-Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vzk9ehqr8.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> It is not automatically "converting"; as far as the notes subsystem is
>>> concerned, the data you throw at it to be associated with an object the
>>> note annotates has always been uninterpreted stream of bytes. If an
>>> application wants to store the raw representation of a commit object
>>> including the log message and its header, it has every right to expect
>>> that it can use "git cat-file commit $argument_to_the_C_option" as the
>>> source of that uninterpreted stream of bytes, doesn't it?
>>
>> Some part of git-notes expects this stream of bytes to be textual,
>> human readable. In that case, "git notes add -C commit/tag"'s stuffing
>> a blob with the given commit/tag content to notes tree may make sense.
>> Personally I'd rather stuff the commit/tag object instead so no new
>> blobs are created. The end result is the same: read_sha1_file() always
>> return correct text, so does "git notes show".
>
> No, the end result is definitely not the same.
>
> There are two important characteristics of "uninterpreted byte stream" the
> above thinking is not taking into consideration:
>
> (1) we do not interpret what the application stores; and
> (2) the application is *not* limited by our type system.
>
> Suppose the application happens to want to stuff the contents it took from
> a commit object, and "add -C $objecname" is a convenient way to do so. We
> have recorded it as "blob" because it is uninterpreted stream of bytes. If
> you record that as a leaf note in the note tree, does that mean the note
> tree now suddenly have a submodule? Hell, no.
>
> What if the application wanted to record the contents of a tree object
> instead? How would that affect the fan-out mechanism the note subsystem
> uses to hash the 40-hexadecimal object names? After descending the notes
> tree to consume the object name to reach the leaf node, it still finds
> even more level hanging below. Not very careful "list all object names
> that have notes attached in this note tree" implementation may end up
> descending into the tree object, because of this patch. Another bad
> implication of such a change is that suddenly we would start including all
> the subobjects in that tree object when computing the reachability of the
> notes tree.
Hmm.. you are right. Consider this series dropped.
>
> The application needs to have a way to tell what is in the data it stores
> anyway, because it is not necessarily "enhancing git" kind of application
> that talks about relationships between git objects. And it may do so
> either by convention (e.g. my "notes/amlog" notes tree only records a
> single-line text that is a Message-Id header of the original patch e-mail
> commits came from) or by having its own way to identify the application
> specific data type (e.g. json, pickle, protobuf, etc.). It is pointless
> to say "Git object types can be stored natively, but there is only one
> type of blob so the application needs to find a way to coax the types of
> data it wants to store itself." It needs to do so anyway, and having
> native and standardized way only for git object types does not improve the
> system. It only ties our hands going forward because we need to define
> what it _means_ to store non-blob types in the notes tree, and support
> that forever.
>
> So this 1/4 patch is _not_ a bugfix at all. It breaks perfectly good
> current storage semantics without no good reason.
>
> For that matter, as long as $EDITOR is set to something appropriate for
> the application specific data, there is no reason to forbid editing,
> either.
>
> The only sensible safety against "oops, I forgot that this notes tree
> stores binary gunk" I can think of offhand that won't cripple sensible use
> case is to sample the data to see if it is binary and ask confirmation,
> similar to how "less" asks "frotz may be a binary file. See it anyway?",
> and do so only when we are spewing it to the terminal.
--
Duy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-12 6:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-08 13:11 [PATCH] notes: do not accept non-blobs as new notes Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2012-05-08 16:03 ` Jeff King
2012-05-08 16:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-05-09 8:19 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-05-09 17:37 ` Jeff King
2012-05-09 17:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-05-09 18:43 ` Jeff King
2012-05-10 14:04 ` [PATCH 0/4] git-notes ui fixes regarding non-blobs notes Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2012-05-10 14:04 ` [PATCH 1/4] notes: preserve object type given by "add -C" Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2012-05-10 14:04 ` [PATCH 2/4] notes: "add -c" refuses to open an editor with non-blobs Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2012-05-10 15:26 ` Johannes Sixt
2012-05-11 1:11 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-05-10 14:05 ` [PATCH 3/4] notes: refuse to edit non-blobs Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2012-05-10 14:05 ` [PATCH 4/4] notes: refuse to append to non-blob notes Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2012-05-10 14:43 ` [PATCH 4/4] notes: only append a blob to a blob Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2012-05-10 15:19 ` Jeff King
2012-05-10 15:31 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-05-10 15:45 ` Jeff King
2012-05-11 3:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-05-10 14:29 ` [PATCH 0/4] git-notes ui fixes regarding non-blobs notes Jeff King
2012-05-11 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] non-blob notes fixes Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2012-05-11 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] notes: preserve object type given by "add -C" Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2012-05-11 21:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-05-12 5:20 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-05-12 6:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-05-12 6:58 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy [this message]
2012-05-11 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] notes: "add -c" refuses to open an editor with non-blobs Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2012-05-11 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] notes: refuse to edit non-blobs Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2012-05-11 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] notes: only allow to append a blob to a blob Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CACsJy8AYwBdfywuOQ7t873Hc-Sjv3Fnx77s+1VmKWbSXts77-Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).