Re: Just a note: .git/refs/snap/ is not standard

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: May 2, 2005, 03:13 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0505012249460.30848-100000@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vacneqtn8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Sun, 1 May 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Linus, 
> 
>     not that there is any "de facto" or any standard there, but
> the name .git/refs/snap/ you lifted from the vicinity thing is
> not something Cogito folks have.  My understanding is of their
> concensus is that .git/refs have single level subdirectories
> like 'heads' and 'tags', and there will be little 41-byte text
> files that look like .git/HEAD.

I was intending this to be a more general concensus (and you seem to have followed it with your "snap" subdirectory).

> So you probably would want to either (1) readdir in .git/refs (to future
> proof) or (2) drop refs/snap from the vicinity list for now (to not give
> special treatment to JIT, which I myself do not mind ;-)).  Also if you
> go route (2) drop "refs" itself as well.

Actually, my code was intended to take things like "heads/master" or "tags/linux-2.6.13", which are found under "refs/" (although I also check that they don't start with "." and have exactly one "/", to enforce the naming system). Making it "heads/linus" rather than "linus" is important for writing the files, since you can't guess reliably what subdirectory the user means; also, it is easier for dealing with HTTP servers, where you don't know what to ask for.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*