Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> writes: >> - Make sure that we show "there is no such tree-ish, no way to look >> up any note to any commit from there" and "I understood the tree >> you gave me, but there is no note for that commit" differently. > > How would you reconcile that with the usual "there are only a couple > commits with a note in the hundreds you make me display"?
I am talking about the difference between "a tree exists (which may lack notes for a given commit)" and "a tree does not even exist in the first place". This patch removed "a tree exists but that is not a ref so we silently ignore", but I do not know if that change alone covers everything---do you? >> - Decide if we want to "fail" the operation when the notes tree >> given by the user is not even a tree-ish or just "warn" and keep >> going. And do so consistently. > > Is this something you want to be figured before merging this patch? Depends on the definition of 'merging'. I queued this one on 'pu', and have no intention to merge it down to 'master' by the end of this month; in the meantime either incremental or replacement refinement can certainly address that inconsistency I'd hope ;-) Thanks. -- 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
