Re: How is working on arbitrary remote heads supposed to work in Cogito (+ PATCH)?

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jul 28, 2005, 20:14 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507282201110.3005@wgmdd8.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <pan.2005.07.28.19.47.38.753705@smurf.noris.de>

Hi,

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Matthias Urlichs wrote:

> Hi, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> Since git is better than all of these, we should be able to easily write a
> SVN-like porcelain, so ... ;-)

Sorry, you're correct.

Show 8 quoted lines

> > IMHO, if you need a central repository, you should also have
> > one central HEAD.
>
> I disagree. Larger projects have multiple HEADs (stable, oldstable,
> development, ...). I don't like putting those in different repositories,
> you end up with a heap of housekeeping effort to hardlink duplicate
> objects, all of which is going to be wasted when different people run
> "git repack".

Sorry again. I should have been clearer: If you have a larger project which does have production releases which have to be patched for a while, and thus need several branches, then there is still a *very good* reason not to play games with the names of those branches or the tags.

Naming the remote HEAD differently than the local HEAD is just *wrong* when you want to push back to them. I agree that it is a fine intellectual challenge to keep juggling a few remote HEADs, and throw in a few local HEADs, but all that is *complicated*. And complicated things lead to complications.

BTW I am a Jeff, I use git branches extensively in two projects.

The only sane way if you have to have different local and remote HEADs that I can think of, would be to allow only the current local active HEAD to be pushed to a certain remote HEAD (preferably identified by a file in .git/branches).

Ciao, Dscho