Re: [RFC 0/3] Reflogs for deleted refs: fix breakage and suggest namespace change
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Aug 18, 2012, 20:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vboi8rl2q.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <1345310086-20089-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
mhagger@alum.mit.edu writes:
Show 6 quoted lines
> Given that a flag day would anyway be required to add a d/f-tolerant > system, I could live with a separate "graveyard" namespace as > originally proposed by Jeff. > > However, I still think that as long as we are making a jump, we could > try to land closer to the ultimate destination.
Do we _know_ already what the "ultimate destination" looks like?
If the answer is yes, then I agree, but otherwise, I doubt it is a good idea to introduce unnecessary complexity to the system that may have to be ripped out and redone.
I didn't get the impression that we know the "ultimate destination" from the previous discussion, especially if we discount the tangent around "having next and next/foo at the same time" which was on nobody's wish, but I may be misremembering things.