From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:59:37 GMT
Subject: Re: remote#branch
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:
> 
> 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