From: Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:19:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Current Issues #3
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP11A8D53B4DD4B29078F810AE9A0@CEZ.ICE>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605220216310.3697@g5.osdl.org>

On Mon, 22 May 2006 03:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:

> [...]
> 
> but maybe this is overdesigned. Comments?


It all looks good, especially your description of the git pull variations
which seem more natural than what exists now.

The only minor comment i'd make is that we shouldn't mix so many different
names for the same thing.  In your example you have  "remote" (singular)
sections with branch sections that contain "source" keys which map to those
remote sections, both corresponding to "refs/remotes" (plural).

There doesn't seem to be any need to stick with "source" as a key, so :

[remote "origin/master"]
	repo = origin
	branch = master

[branch "master"]
	remote = "origin/master"

Sean