Re: How is working on arbitrary remote heads supposed to work in Cogito (+ PATCH)?
- From
- Josef Weidendorfer <josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jul 29, 2005, 09:10 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200507291110.08417.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vmzo6jbme.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Hi,
On Friday 29 July 2005 09:48, you wrote:
> Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes: > > So, what do you mean by "clone" here? And what command should I use for > > pushing then?
...
Show 5 quoted lines
> Now, A may happen to be on my home machine and B may happen be > on my notebook, meaning the owner of A and B are both myself. > But even in that case I would still work by "pulling from A" > when I am on B, and "pulling from B" when I am on A. In other > words, "pulling" is the only patch flow mechanism I would use.
OK, that is your opinion and your work flow. But porcelains perhaps would like to allow other work flows, even if it seems confusing for you.
And I think the problem here simple is that send-pack *forces* local and remote head names to be the same. This is forcing policy to porcelains, but GIT should be only about plumbing.
Perhaps the solution is to allow more flexibility in GIT. What about introducing an additional environment GIT_REFS_DIR? When using send-pack, the porcelain would set this variable to a directory containing a 1:1 name relationship to the remote repository.
Josef