Re: [PATCH] clone: in protocol v2, use remote's default branch
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Dec 16, 2020, 20:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqft4531xl.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <X9pUc2HXUr3+WHbR@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 11 quoted lines
> I think: > > git checkout --guess origin > > would make sense to dereference origin/HEAD to "foo", as if we had said > "git checkout foo". That's the explicit part that seems safe. My > question is whether: > > git checkout origin > > should likewise do so.
I see. I think "--guess" is by default true, so unless you have checkout.guess=false configured, my answer to the above question is yes.
Show 7 quoted lines
> As you note, one can always use --detach to make > their intention clear, and checkout is a porcelain, so we are OK to > change it. But would users find that annoying? I frequently use "git > checkout origin" to get a detached HEAD pointing at your master (e.g., > because I want to reproduce a bug, or do a "something like this..." > patch). I'm sure I could retrain my fingers, but I wonder if I'm not the > only one.
My fingers say "git checkout X^0" instead of "--detach" when I want to detach for any value of X (e.g. "HEAD", "v2.28.0"). But I do understand people like to be implicit when they can.
Show 5 quoted lines
> Doing it for only an explicit "--guess" turns that feature into a > tri-state (explicitly off, explicitly on, or "implicit, so be a little > more conservative"). Which perhaps is harder to explain, but I think > cleanly adds the new feature in a consistent way, without really > changing any existing behavior.
Hmmmm... I do not offhand know if that is a good idea or not.
Show 9 quoted lines
> Related, I assume that: > > git checkout --guess origin/foo > git checkout origin/foo > > should behave the same as their "origin" or "origin/HEAD" counterparts > for consistency (obviously making "foo" in the former case, and either > detaching or making "foo" in the second case, depending on what you > think of the earlier paragraphs).
I think that is what I said in the "what would happen if we tweaked" paragraph about using origin/ prefix as a disambiguator? Then yes, I think we are in agreement.
Thanks.