From: Jacob Keller Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 20:34:08 GMT Subject: Re: avoiding fetching specific refs from a remote Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:22 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Jeff King 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. > > 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.