From: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:19:02 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] pull/fetch rename
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:

> 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