Re: [RFC] pull/fetch rename
- From
Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>
- Date
- Oct 21, 2009, 17:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20091021171902.GA27495@localhost>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vk4ypb71j.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:22:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> For example, I am in favor of deprecating the "pull $there $src:$dst" > notation. Before we standardized on the separate remote layout, it was > sometimes handy to be able to use $dst that is a local branch, but these > days, especially when repository $there has remote.$there.fetch mapping > configured so that we can compute from $src what remote tracking branch we > should store the fetched commit, the flexibility is more confusing than it > is useful.
I emphatically agree. I was always uncomfortable with the refspec syntax, because it is too flexible. Why would I ever want to access branch refs other than refs/heads/ on the remote, and why would I ever want to write directly to the local refs/heads/ namespace (in a non-bare repo), as opposed to refs/remotes/<name>? Unless he wants to do something unusual, the user should not be confronted with questions like that.
Clemens