From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: Merge with git-pasky II. Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:14:11 +0100 Message-ID: <1113743652.3884.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20050414002902.GU25711@pasky.ji.cz> <20050413212546.GA17236@64m.dyndns.org> <20050414004504.GW25711@pasky.ji.cz> <7vfyxtsurd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v64ypsqev.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vvf6pr4oq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050414121624.GZ25711@pasky.ji.cz> <7vll7lqlbg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v7jj5qgdz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1113559330.12012.292.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> <1113580881.27227.73.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , Junio C Hamano , Petr Baudis , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Apr 17 15:10:54 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DN9Y0-0001by-TR for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:10:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261315AbVDQNOe (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:14:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261316AbVDQNOe (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:14:34 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:65216 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261315AbVDQNOc (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:14:32 -0400 Received: from [203.53.50.91] (helo=[172.18.240.72]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DN9bR-0001jf-35; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:14:22 +0100 To: Johannes Schindelin In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 (2.2.1.1-2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 17:33 +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > But if it can be done cheaply enough at a later date even though we end > > up repeating ourselves, and if it can be done _well_ enough that we > > shouldn't have just asked the user in the first place, then yes, OK I > > agree. > > The repetition could be helped by using a cache. Perhaps. Since neither such a cache nor even the commit comments are strictly part of the git data, they probably shouldn't be included in the sha1 hash of the commit object. However, I don't see a fundamental reason why we couldn't store them in the same file but omit them from the hash calculations. That also allows us to retrospectively edit commit comments without completely changing the entire subsequent history. Or is that a little too heretical a suggestion? -- dwmw2