From: Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 01:02:31 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Make "$remote/$branch" work with unconventional refspecs
Message-ID: <CA+gHt1Aq+Hi5Uf-s+q5WaigHXP1Qyq100N=C4x4pwFf8-Q=GcA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vvc6xt5ov.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

El 06/05/2013 00:36, "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com> escribió:
>
> Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> writes:
>
> > This would not allow the user to use the relevant $remote_name for $nick,
> > which I argue might be the more natural name for the user to use, since
> > it's the same name that is used for otherwise interacting with the remote.
>
> That is where we differ.
>
> The thing is, when you name a local ref (be it "refs/heads/master"
> or "refs/remotes/origin/master") with a short-hand, you are still
> dealing with a refname, not interacting with the remote at all.
>
> Taking notice of remote.$nick.fetch mappings only to complicate the
> refname resolution logic is absolutely unacceptable, at least to
> somebody who comes from the "we are interacting with refs, not with
> remotes" school, like me.

Maybe we could mark it explicity with a double slash: "$remote//$branch",
or similar. And it even allows a slash in the remote nick: "bar/baz//foo".

See you,
Santi

P.D: Resend because the list rejected it, sorry for the duplicate.