Re: remote#branch

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Oct 31, 2007, 00:59 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0710301752250.30120@woody.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90710301741n67526976vda1cd131270aa7f@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Martin Langhoff wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> 
> Having something functionally similar to
> 
>   cg-clone git://foo.tld/bar.git#blue
> 
> would save a few steps -- and some potential confusion -- for projects
> using GIT.

I do agree with that "functionally similar", I just disagree with the syntax.

The thing is, we don't want a single branch name. Not for clone, not for fetch, not for pull, and not for push.

Yes, a single branch may be one common case, but it's definitely not the only one, and it's fundamentally the wrong thing to use as a definition of syntax.

It's also the wrong thing to do for local stuff.

			Linus

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.