From: Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 08:50:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Renaming the "master" branch without breaking existing clones
Message-ID: <90305e1e-c161-42f3-ab3b-92fc423d17c6@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtuxjva6w.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On 04-08-2020 00:17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>
>> Of course. Though, having a symbolic ref of 'pu/seen' to 'seen' would
>> hopefully not defeat the plan while being a little helpful ;)
> 
> How would that be helpful?  After all, I do want to allow us accept
> a topic about 'seen' from author 'pu', and that pu/seen branch
> should be different from the "not yet ready for 'next' but at least
> the maintainer acknowledges that he has seen them" integration
> branch whose name is 'seen'.
> 

I thought 'seen' was blunt for a topic name in the sense that it doesn't
convey what the topic does about 'seen'. So, having a symbolic ref of
'pu/seen' to 'seen' might be a good allusion to the fact that 'pu' has
been renamed to 'seen' just by looking at the list of remote branches.

-- 
Sivaraam