Re: Unresolved issues #2

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: May 6, 2006, 15:26 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605060821430.16343@g5.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vhd43vgnm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Fri, 5 May 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

>
> > So I'd argue that (a) yes, we do want to have the "proto porcelain" that 
> > sets remote branch information without the user having to know the magic 
> > "git repo-config" incantation, or know which file in .git/remotes/ to 
> > edit, but that (b) it's even more important to try to decide on what the 
> > remote description format _is_.
> 
> Is it format you care about or the semantics?

I _personally_ care about the semantics, but not very deeply - since I tend to actually have just one main branch, and a couple of throw-away ones if I ended up working on something.

But I think that for this thing to become useful, we want to care about the format - or at least the interface to the different users (with the acknowledgement that "users" should often be porcelain above us).

Right now we've basically had people hand-editing the remotes files, and I think cogito still uses the older branches format that came from cogito in the first place. I think we should just try to decide on a config file format, and make it easy for cogito etc to use it.

		Linus