On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Johan Herland <jo...@herland.net> writes:
[...]
> Assuming that it is a good idea to "allow" empty notes, I think
> there are two issues involved here:
>
> * Traditionally, feeding an empty note is taken as a request to
> remove an existing note. Therefore, there is no way to
> explicitly ask an empty note to be stored for a commit.
>
> * Because feeding an empty note was the way to request removal,
> even though "git notes remove" is there, it is underused.
>
> In other words, assuming that it is a good idea to allow empty
> notes, isn't the desired endgame, after compatibility transition
> period, that "git notes add" will never remove notes?
>
> With that endgame in mind, shouldn't the internal implementation be
> moving in a direction where "create_note()" will *not* be doing any
> removal, and its caller (i.e. "add") does the switching depending on
> the "do we take emptyness as a request to remove"? I.e.
>
> static int add(...)
> {
> if (!allow_empty && message_is_empty())
> remove_note();
> else
> create_note();
> }
>
>> static void create_note(const unsigned char *object, struct msg_arg *msg,
>> - int append_only, const unsigned char *prev,
>> - unsigned char *result)
>> + int append_only, int allow_empty,
>> + const unsigned char *prev, unsigned char *result)
>
> In other words, I have this suspicion that create_note() that
> removes is a wrong interface in the first place, and giving it
> a new allow_empty parameter to conditionally perform removal is
> making it worse. No?
I agree, and it's fixed in the re-roll. It turned into a slightly
larger rewrite than anticipated, but I'm fairly happy with the result.
...Johan
--
Johan Herland, <jo...@herland.net>
www.herland.net
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
