Re: [1.8.0] Provide proper remote ref namespaces

>> On Thursday 03 February 2011, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
>> wrote:
>>> > Migration plan:
>>> > ...
>>> > In v1.8.0, we should default to the new default refspecs when
>>> > creating new remotes. However, existing remotes (created
>>> > pre-v1.8.0) must continue to work as before, so we cannot simply
>>> > remove the implicit refspecs (or tag auto-following). Instead we
>>> > need to make sure that the implicit refspecs is NOT applied to the
>>> > new-style remotes. Identifying new-style vs. old-style remotes can
>>> > be done by looking at the refspec itself (old-style:
>>> > "refs/remotes/$remote/*", new-style:
>>> > "refs/remotes/$remote/heads/*"), or (worst case) by introducing a
>>> > config variable specifying the desired behavior (defaulting to
>>> > old-style).
>>>
>>> I'd prefer config var (remote.*.implicitRules, maybe). We don't
>>> reserve heads, tags... in remote namespace for ourselves. Some users
>>> might have already have branches heads/ant, heads/bee... making new
>>> style detection unreliable.
>
> I don't quite follow the argument. For me the question is how likely
> an old-time user has modified the refspec to read
> "refs/remotes/$remote/heads/* (new-style). I think this is very, very
> unlikely and thus the "heuristic" to detect old/new style works most
> of the time and there is no need for a new config/compatibility key.