Re: [PATCHv2] fetch: Only call a new ref a "branch" if it's under refs/heads/.

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 13, 2012, 21:53 UTC
Message-ID: <20120413215316.GA19826@burratino>
In-Reply-To: <20120413211350.GD7919@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Hmm. The ref->name we are comparing here is the local side. So if I am
> fetching a new branch "foo" from the remote into a local
> "refs/remotes/origin/foo" tracking ref, it used to say:
>
>     From ../parent
>      * [new branch]      master     -> origin/master
>
> Now it says:
>
>     From ../parent
>      * [new ref]         master     -> origin/master
>
> while refs/remotes/* are not technically branches in our side, I think
> from the user's perspective, it is true that we have fetched a branch.
> Should we be calling refs/remotes/* branches, too? Should we be checking
> the remote's name for the item instead of the local one?

The former sounds sensible. Then once the default refspec learns to fetch into separate refs/remotes/origin/heads/* and refs/remotes/origin/notes/* namespaces the logic could be updated to write [new branch] or [new note collection] according to the situation.

Jonathan