Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] show-ref: introduce --branches and deprecate --heads

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 14, 2024, 21:34 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BEM4fqU9s7_dxgi_twe_T169mGjZN9-CJRLU5cjnUi8WQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq7cerdxv4.fsf@gitster.g>

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 9:21 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

>
> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > If we are renaming --heads to --branches, should --head also be renamed?
>
> I do not think so.  It is specifically about HEAD (the thing that
> lives above refs/ hierarchy, historically implemented as a file
> whose name is "HEAD" that is directly inside $GIT_DIR).
>
> Thanks.

I'm fine if we don't want to rename it, but I don't quite follow this particular rationale. The logic you use here seems to be about internal details ("it's the file named HEAD") and ignores what users might refer to it as ("current branch"), whereas --branches ignored the internal details ("the files under refs/heads/") and instead concentrates on what users might refer to them as ("branches") and used that as the rationale for renaming.

That said, I've almost never seen users use --head (and haven't used it myself), whereas asking for heads/branches is much more common, and I'm very happy with the change from --heads to --branches. Also, even if we do agree --head should be renamed, I'd be fine with punting it to later in order to get this improvement in now...it just seemed like a small inconsistency that I thought was worth pointing out.