On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes: >> It sounds like what a notes merge really wants is a new linked worktree >> that has branch refs/notes/foo checked out: >> >> * This would allow multiple notes merges to take place at the same time >> provided they target different merge references. >> >> * This would prevent multiple notes merges to the same notes reference >> at the same time by the same mechanism that prevents the same branch >> from being checked out in two linked worktrees at the same time. >> >> It's just a thought; I have no idea whether it is practical... > > That was certainly one of the possibilities that crossed my mind. > > In any case, the primary thing I am interested in at this point is > to unblock David's "prepare things so that we can put primary refs > in a different ref backends more easily" topic, and I've already > made my point a few messages ago upstream: > > I think it is OK for us to admit that the "notes" subsystem is > not quite ready to work well with multiple working tree world > yet [*1*], and move this series forward without worrying about > them. > > So doing the absolute minimum, leaving the "now what can we do to > improve notes-merge process?" outside the scope of the topic.
That's exactly what I was also trying to do: David's topic should not have to deal with NOTES_MERGE_* at all. Simply leave it all as something that belongs in $GIT_COMMON_DIR, and let's solve concurrent unrelated notes merges as a wholly independent, separate topic. ...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
