Re: Creation of a branch named that has a directory prefix equal to the name of another branch fail.

>
> Hi all and thanks for the answers.
>
> By my understanding it seems that you are aware of all the problems and you have just in place a solution for the future.
>
> I will just wait for it.
>
> Thank you really much for your effort, best regards,
> Tommaso Ercole
>
> P.S. btw this chat is it private between us or published somewhere, I just thought about it now, when I saw my phone number on my signature...

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> Sent: venerdì 24 luglio 2020 22:44
> To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> Cc: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>; Tommaso Ercole <Tommaso.Ercole@qlik.com>; git@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Creation of a branch named that has a directory prefix equal to the name of another branch fail.
>
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
> > Note that even though packed-refs does not have this limitation, we
> > still enforce it in order to avoid headaches when moving between loose
> > and packed refs.
> >
> > Likewise, we'll probably[1] continue to enforce it with reftables, at
> > least for a while, to make things less confusing when pushing and
> > pulling between repositories with different storage.
>
> Yup, that coincides with my understanding.
>
> The files backend could also learn encoding/decoding refnames and that could be used to transition, if/when we decide to discard the "refs are organized in a directory-tree like fashion" design we have been using, to a new world order where a branch M and branches M/A, M/B, and M/C can co-exist.  Encoding/decoding refname to map to the filename would also help those on case insensitive filesystems.
>
> Thanks to the recent preparation work for reftable, we are ensuring that we do not leave direct accesses to $GIT_DIR/refs/* in our codebase outside the files backend implementation, such a transition hopefully is getting much easier to do than before.