Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] transport.c: introduce core.alternateRefsPrefixes

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 24, 2018, 23:14 UTC
Message-ID: <20180924231455.GA7702@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqva6ur24y.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 02:55:57PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > Do you have an opinion on whether for_each_alternate_refs() interface
> > should stop passing back refnames? By the "they may not even exist"
> > rationale in this sub-thread, I think it's probably foolish for any
> > caller to actually depend on the names being meaningful.
> 
> I personally do not mind they were all ".have" or unnamed.
> 
> The primary motivatgion behind for-each-alternate-refs was that we
> wanted to find more anchoring points to help the common ancestry
> negotiation and for-each-*-ref was the obvious way to do so; the
> user did not care anything about names.

Right, I think that is totally fine for the current uses. I guess my question was: do you envision cutting the interface down to only the oids to bite us in the future?

I was on the fence during past discussions, but I think I've come over to the idea that the refnames actively confuse things.

-Peff