Re: [RFD] making separate-remote layout easier to use

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Nov 26, 2006, 03:48 UTC
Message-ID: <7v4psmzx4w.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20061126031421.GC29394@spearce.org>

Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:

> We moved away from the $GIT_DIR/branches directory to
> $GIT_DIR/remotes, yet we still support $GIT_DIR/branches in
> remote handling code.

IIRC, git never used "branches", so there was no "moving away". It was merely to interpret what cg-init left in the repository. Since the very early days remotes/ has been _the_ format git used, and I do not see any strong reason to change it now. The continued support for branches is an irrelevant topic and is not a justification to favor configuration over remotes/ nor the other way around.

> For one thing the newer remote.<name>.fetch seems to make more sense
> to new users than Pull: lines do.

That is quite subjective.

> ..., so there is probably low risk of
> breakage ...

Again, "low risk of breakage" does not justify switching.

As I said in the other message, I think configuration vs remotes/ is futile subject and premature topic to talk about before nailing down what semantics we would want. Either format can have the expressive power, once we know what we want to express.