Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] Cloning with remote unborn HEAD

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 5, 2021, 23:07 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqczxeyuyp.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <87eehucj33.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> And in [3] I noted that we introduced the word "branches" into
> protocol-v2.txt for the first time without defining what it means
> (presumably just refs/heads/*, but then let's say so...). There was a
> reply promising clarification, but I note that v7 still just says
> "branches".

I do not think it so bad to mention "branch" in the part that explains things to humans in the terminology they are used to. It is a different matter to introduce EBNF terminal <branch> without a proper definition of the word, but I od not think we are doing so here.

I however have to agree with the need to tighten what gets sent; that is why a suggested replacement in my earlier review phrased it this way:

    unborn

    If HEAD is a symref pointing to an unborn branch <b>, the
    server reports it as "unborn HEAD symref-target:refs/heads/<b>"
    in its response.

to make it clear that a full refname is sent for the pointee by HEAD.

Thanks.