Re: avoiding fetching specific refs from a remote

From: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 5, 2020, 20:34 UTC
Message-ID: <CA+P7+xrAyCgYyh4_WM5hcBv8+WXaRvN_Cf6nqz4ruO4oHzwjvQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1rkloyeg.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:22 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

>
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
> >> Essentially, because both main and master have similar names, tab
> >> completion requires remembering to type one additional character than
> >> I am used to.
> >
> > Heh, I didn't think anybody considered that implication so far; the fact
> > that they were similar names has generally been considered a positive. I
> > agree it would be annoying.
>
> FWIW, I've been saying that 'maint' will become harder to type all
> along ever since I heard 'main'.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqtuz9tq30.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com/
>

Right. I'm generally for the name change, and I like having the remote honor the old name as a compatibility at least for some duration.

Show 19 quoted lines

> > This is definitely a reasonable thing to want, and it has come up off
> > and on over the years. One search term for the list archive is "negative
> > refspecs", though it turns up a lot of useless hits when the two words
> > are not directly adjacent.
> >
> > This old thread might be worth reading:
> >
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/git/20140124090104.GA396@x4/
> >
> > and there is even a patch in there:
> >
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/git/20140125013433.GA22336@sigill.intra.peff.net/
> >
> > but I didn't go over it carefully enough to know whether it is utter
> > trash, or something that could be used as a starting point.
>
> I think the idea is interesting.  I sometimes find negative
> pathspecs quite useful, and I suspect negative refspecs would also
> be.

I've found negative pathspecs incredibly useful in some contexts, (with my only issue being to remember that if you specify a negative pathspec, you must also specify a positive one i.e. "." or something)

I think I'll try to revive that one patch Peff pointed out and then see if it makes sense or needs to be redone.