Re: What to expect after 0.99.8
- From
- Josef Weidendorfer <josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de>
- Date
- Oct 3, 2005, 12:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200510031455.30187.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v7jcvxxrl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On Monday 03 October 2005 02:14, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * Perhaps accept patches to introduce the concept of "patch flow > expressed as ref mappings" Josef has been advocating about.
This was about a central place to store local/remote ref mappings. I proposed the Pull/Push lines in remote/ files changing to hold these mappings, and putting the defaults into Pull-Default and Push-Default.
I changed my mind: IMHO for simplicity, porcelain commands should mostly deal with refspecs (default: current head), and thus, above mappings should be stored per ref/head, not per remote repository. I.e. I won't provide a patch for this.
But why did we choose to make git-pull/git-push to accept a remote repository as first argument, and not a head/refspec in the first place? [Of course, this needs the remote repository be retrievable by head name: see branches/ files. And currently missing here is the distinction between fetch and push direction].
In the current state, it would be better to get rid of branches/ parsing in GIT at all: By keeping it in, we force Cogito to keep the current format. [BTW: the git-push man page is wrong about branches/: the name of the file in branches/ corresponds to a local refspec, and not to a remote name]
Josef