From: Karl Hasselström Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:21:19 GMT Subject: Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts Message-ID: <20061116132119.GH5453@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> In-Reply-To: On 2006-11-15 13:11:36 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Nicolas Pitre writes: > > > > > But again I think it is important that the URL to use must be a > > > per branch attribute i.e. attached to "default/master" and not > > > just "default". This way someone could add all branches of > > > interest into the "default" group even if they're from different > > > repositories, and a simple get without any argument would get > > > them all. > > > > I think the "one group per one remote repository" model is a lot > > easier to explain. At least when I read your first "branch group" > > proposal that was I thought was going on and I found it quite > > sensible (and it maps more or less straightforwardly to the way > > existing .git/refs/remotes is set up by default). > > I think one group per remote repo is how things should be by default > too. But we should not limit it to that if possible. Without the limitation, we risk name collisions when getting all branches from the remote repository (that is, including any new branches we previously didn't know about). -- Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com