Re: What to expect after 0.99.8

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Oct 4, 2005, 05:57 UTC
Message-ID: <7v1x31hlj4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <200510031455.30187.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>

Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> But why did we choose to make git-pull/git-push
> to accept a remote repository as first argument, and not a head/refspec
> in the first place? [Of course, this needs the remote repository be
> retrievable by head name: see branches/ files. And currently missing here is 
> the distinction between fetch and push direction].

I do not understand this comment. I do not think you are just talking about the syntax:

        $ git-push <remote> <refspec1> <refspec2>...
    vs
        $ git-push' <refspec1> <refspec2>... <remote>

There must be something deeper you are talking about I am missing. The branches/ file allowed optionally specifying one single refname (otherwise defaulting HEAD) since we tried to become compatible with what Cogito did.

It appears that cg-push uses the same branches information for pushing into remote, which is what I missed when I did git-parse-remote --- we do not use this information to decide the default ref to push into, and not to break expectations of Cogito users we may need to fix this. Is this what you are discussing here?

> In the current state, it would be better to get rid of branches/
> parsing in GIT at all: By keeping it in, we force Cogito to keep the current
> format.

Hmph. The intent was to keep people's existing Cogito derived configuration working.