Re: worktrees vs. alternates

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: May 17, 2018, 03:31 UTC
Message-ID: <20180517033110.GA13235@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180517004355.GA9431@sita-lt.atc.tcs.com>

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 06:13:55AM +0530, Sitaram Chamarty wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> I may have missed a few of the earlier messages, but in the last
> 20 or so in this thread, I did not see namespaces mentioned by
> anyone. (I.e., apologies if it was addressed and discarded
> earlier!)
> 
> I was under the impression that, as long as "read" access need
> not be controlled (Konstantin's situation, at least, and maybe
> Peff's too, for public repos), namespaces are a good way to
> create and manage that "mother repo".
> 
> Is that not true anymore?  Mind, I have not actually used them
> in anger anywhere, so I could be missing some really big point
> here.

The biggest problem with namespaces as they are currently implemented is that they do not apply universally to all commands. If you only access the repo via push/fetch, they may be fine. But as soon as you start doing other operations (e.g., showing the history of a branch in a web interface), you don't get to use the namespaced names anymore.

I think a different implementation of namespaces could do this better. E.g., by controlling the view of the refs at the refs.c layer (or perhaps as a filtering backend).

-Peff