From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 20:35:52 GMT
Subject: Re: git branch --edit-description a custom file
Message-ID: <0bd3d494-ff99-9895-d913-51a24f8092af@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191101164955.GA26219@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Hi Peff

On 01/11/2019 16:49, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:29:43PM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote:
> 
>>>> I'd love to see a consensus around putting remote versions of refs/foo under
>>>> refs/remote/<remote-name>/foo. To share notes I add a refspec that fetches
>>>> to refs/remote/<remote-name>/notes. It is a pain that 'git pull' wont merge
>>>> them for me though.
>>>
>>> The trouble with that sort of scheme is that it conflicts with the
>>> current namespace scheme, which puts the remote "notes" branch in
>>> "refs/remotes/<remote-name>/notes". And it's not just a problem if you
>>> want to have a branch called "notes". Think about what "git fetch
>>> --prune" would do.
>>
>> I was suggesting a convention of using refs/remote/ not refs/remotes/ for
>> tracking remote refs that are not branches to avoid that problem. It's not
>> ideal to have remote branches under a different namespace to all the other
>> remote refs but it does avoid breaking current setups. I haven't thought it
>> through but perhaps in the long run we could migrate remote branches to
>> refs/remote/<remote-name>/heads/ and treat refs/remotes/<remote-name>/ as an
>> alias for refs/remote/<remote-name>/heads/. As you say below we'd need to
>> think about how to use remote tags as well.
> 
> Oh indeed, I totally missed that subtlety. Sorry.

I should have made the difference clearer, it's easy to miss the missing 
's'

>> Thanks for the links, I'll have a read through them.
> 
> Maybe I've managed to trick you into working on the greater refs/remotes
> organization problem, though. ;)

Maybe we'll see once I've read those threads next week!

Phillip
> -Peff
>