From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:31:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Define relative .git/objects/info/alternates semantics.
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509131224290.23242@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vk6hl4fd9.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
> 
> > Yes. We should probably have some well-defined meaning for relative paths
> > in there regardless (eg just define that they are always relative to the
> > main GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY or something).
> >
> > That would also allow mirrors to mirror the git archives in different 
> > places, without upsetting the result (as long as they are mirrored 
> > together).
> >
> > 		Linus
> 
> This patch is request-for-comments.  I have experimented it and
> have a feeling that it may be more intuitive to make it relative
> to $project.git/ directory, instead of $project.git/objects as
> you originally suggested, in which case a maintainer tree would
> have "../../torvalds/linux-2.6.git/objects" instead (one less
> dotdot), and if nobody objects that is probably what I'll end up
> doing.

It seems odd to have the "objects" at the end and not be starting from 
"objects". I suspect that the most intuitive thing would be for something 
under $project.git/info to be .git to .git, while something under 
.git/objects/info should be objects to objects.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*