From: Johannes Schindelin Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:50:41 GMT Subject: Re: Get rid of .git/branches/ and .git/remotes/? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Hi, On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > [branches.origin] > url = master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git > pull = master:origin > > [branches.mine] > url = my.domain.com:/other/repo > pull = master:mine I like this approach best. In fact, that was my idea on how to go about implementing that feature. However, > [branches.origin] > url = master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git > pull = master:origin > > [.mine] > url = my.domain.com:/other/repo > pull = master:mine I don't like this. Usually, data in ini files is not dependent on its position in the file, with the notable exception of section names. I never ran across nested sections (probably for all the reasons XML is unreadable). And the sections should be exchangable, just for clarities sake. > And I'm not 100% convinced that putting these branches in the config file > has any real advantages over keeping them as separate files. Having > everything in one place is nice, of course, and being able to copy just > one file around might be convenient, but it _does_ make the config file > more complicated. And it _does_ make finding the information for less savvy git users more easy. I'm not 100% convinced, either, but it could be a better concept than different files in different places and different formats basically doing the same. But my thinking went like this: if Pasky and Junio can not agree on one location and format, and therefore none of the two is deprecated, how about giving them a way out they both might be able to agree to? Ciao, Dscho P.S.: Anybody noticed that I did not use 0xb4 in five days?