Re: What to expect after 0.99.8

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Oct 4, 2005, 18:53 UTC
Message-ID: <7vfyrhcdw9.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <200510041108.36202.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>

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

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Tuesday 04 October 2005 07:57, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> I do not understand this comment.
>
> I talk about configuration per remote repository vs. configuration per
> local head, and a consistent user interface regarding these.
>
> Cogito is using configuration per head: If there is a remote fetch mapping,
> this is stored in branches/<headname>. There is no new shortcut to
> remember, because every file in branches corresponds to a local head.

Thanks. This is "lightbulb" moment for me. I did not realize branches/ files are "per head configuration" -- I just thought they are arbitrary tokens, and by convention it can only slurp into the branch with the same name as the file. I even thought about mentioning the possibility to enhance the current

    url://to/repo#rembranch

to
    url://to/repo#rembranch1:localbranch1,rembranch2:localbranch2,...

but I am glad I didn't -- localbranch cannot be anything other than the filename because by definition the file is to describe the local branch of the same name, and describing more than one localbranch does not make sense. OTOH,

    url://to/repo#rembranch1,rembranch2,...

may make sense now --- you are telling this local branch pulls (and makes Octopus) from multiple remote branches.

Anyway, I think I understand what you meant to say now.

> I still think it is wrong to use one head name of a repository as the
> default for the repository's name.

I think this is about branches/ file: "One head name of the local repository is used as a shorthand to name the remote repository described by the file, inside the local repository".