Re: [PATCH] Do not ignore hidden refs

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: Nov 18, 2006, 19:55 UTC
Message-ID: <20061118195520.GQ7201@pasky.or.cz>
In-Reply-To: <7vejs0cz5s.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:50:23PM CET, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:27:09AM CET, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> ...  I do not think it is a great
> >> enough convention to be promoted as the official BCP, but it has
> >> been good enough for me, ...
> >
> > That's way too arbitrary for my taste, I think I needn't explain why.
> 
> Because _I_ explained why already ;-).

Oops. ;-) Me too sloppy today, sorry.

Show 7 quoted lines

> > What about leading underscore?
> 
> I would rather prefer to do refs/{heads,private}/ and allow
> checkout to treat either of them as branches.  We are talking
> about allowing checkout to go to a non-branch by storing a raw
> commit object name in HEAD instead of leaving it as a symref, so
> we know we are going to touch that area already.

Cogito _heavily_ assumes on a lot of places that heads live in refs/heads/ and tags live in refs/tags/. Besides, I think private tags are much more useful to support than private heads (not that you would necessarily make more private tags than private heads, but you are more likely to want tags autopushed than heads; or perhaps that just in my head?). So what about refs/{heads,tags}/private/? :-)

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
The meaning of Stonehenge in Traflamadorian, when viewed from above, is:
"Replacement part being rushed with all possible speed."