From: Andreas Krey <a.krey@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:08:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Unconfuse git clone when two branches at are HEAD.
Message-ID: <20130909160817.GN12966@inner.h.apk.li>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr4cy5a2z.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 07:44:04 +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:
...
> I'd rather not go this route.  Allowing refs/heads/master and local
> branches that forked from it in refs/heads/master/{a,b,c,...} could
> be a potentially useful future enhancement,

Want! We're currently going the route of naming the branches

  master
  feature/master
  feature/subfeature/master

to allow feature/subfeature/topic, and feature/subfeature in the first place.

(Other hierarchy separator candidates were ugly, shell-unwieldy, already
commonly used within branch names, or illegal.)

Andreas

-- 
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800