Re: [PATCH] Do not ignore hidden refs

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Nov 18, 2006, 19:50 UTC
Message-ID: <7vejs0cz5s.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20061118192830.GP7201@pasky.or.cz>

Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:27:09AM CET, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> I think, however, if we (collectively as all the Porcelain
>> writers although I am not really one of them) are to support it,
>> they should not make distinction to the core, and it should be
>> handled with the agreed-upon convention.
>
> I guess I agree.
>
>> ...  I do not think it is a great
>> enough convention to be promoted as the official BCP, but it has
>> been good enough for me, ...
>
> That's way too arbitrary for my taste, I think I needn't explain why.

Because _I_ explained why already ;-).

> What about leading underscore?

I would rather prefer to do refs/{heads,private}/ and allow checkout to treat either of them as branches. We are talking about allowing checkout to go to a non-branch by storing a raw commit object name in HEAD instead of leaving it as a symref, so we know we are going to touch that area already.