Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] for-each-ref: let upstream/push optionally remote ref name

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> >> >> -Also respects `:remotename` to state the name of the *remote* instead of
> >> >> -the ref.
> >> >> +Also respects `:remotename` to state the name of the *remote* instead
> >> >> +of the ref, and `:remoteref` to state the name of the *reference* as
> >> >> +locally known by the remote.
> >> >
> >> > What does "locally known by the remote" mean in this sentence?
> >> 
> >> Good question.  I cannot offhand offer a better and concise
> >> phrasing, but I think can explain what it wants to describe ;-).
> >
> > Yep, described it well.
> >
> > Maybe "and `:remoteref` to state the name by which the remote knows the
> > *reference*"?
> 
> I dunno.  
> 
> The original and your update both seem to come from a worldview
> where there is a single conceptual thing called "reference" that is
> shared between our repository and the remote repository we pull from
> (or push to), and the name we call it is "refs/remotes/origin/devel"
> while the name they use to call it is "refs/heads/devel".  If you
> subscribe to that worldview, then the updated sentence might make it
> clearer than the original.
> 
> But I do not share that worldview, and I am not sure (note: I am
> truly unsure---it's not like I am convinced it is a good idea but
> sugarcoating my expression, at least in this case) if subscribing to
> the worldview helps users' understanding.
> 
> In my view "refs/remotes/origin/devel" is a reference we use to keep
> track of (or "a reference that corresponds to") the reference they
> have called "refs/heads/devel" at the remote, and these are two
> separate entities, so it's not like "this single thing is called
> differently by us and them".
> 
> Stepping back a bit; here is how the description begins.
> 
>     upstream::
>             The name of a local ref which can be considered ``upstream''
>             from the displayed ref.
> 
> So 'upstream' is like 'refs/remotes/origin/devel' in the example in
> the message you are responding to.  Perhaps we can make it clear in
> the description, and then add :remote* modifiers are about asking
> where that remote-tracking branch comes from.  For example, instead
> of these "Also respects...", something like:
> 
>     For a %(upstream) that is a remote-tracking branch, the name of
>     the remote repository it is copied from can be obtained with
>     %(upstream:remotename).  Simiarly, the branch at the remote
>     repository whose tip is copioed to this remote-tracking branch
>     can be obtined with %(upstream:remoteref) as a full refname.
> 
> may reduce the chance of confusion?