Re: [PATCHv5 00/14] git notes

[Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>]

Geert Bosch venit, vidit, dixit 10.09.2009 16:00:
> On Sep 7, 2009, at 22:26, Johan Herland wrote:
...
> 
> Hi Johan,
> 
> I've been following this series with some interest, and am curious
> why notes need to be stored in a separate data structure from regular
> objects. Note that I'm not questioning the design (and certainly would

It's not separate, that's the point. They're stored as objects in trees,
just like anything else. The discussion about the structure is about how
to organize the tree structure, not actual subdirectories under .git/.

> not want to, this late in the process), rather I'd like to learn
> about the reasons.
> 
> I've wondered about this as well in the context of refs, reflog and
> git config. In a completely unified model, every change to the
> repository (except  for the index, pack indices and working directory)
> would be a  commit of the .git/ directory (again excluding indices).
> One of the advantages (besides allowing configuration management
> of the repository itself in addition to its contents) would be that
> no locking is ever required.

...and one of the disadvantages that you're not in control of your
config any more, if you pull from upstream. config and reflog are
something inherently private and local. The reflog does not even make
sense other than in a local (per repo) context.

For the config, one may think up a solution where parts of config are
shared (by storing them as objects and referencing them) and git asks
you before changing anything on pull/fetch. In a sense git submodule
does that already.

Cheers,
Michael