# Re: [PATCH] New git-seek command with documentation and test. 5 messages from 2006-02-24 to 2006-02-24. Participants: linux@horizon.com, Johannes Schindelin, H. Peter Anvin, Andreas Ericsson. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/3450 ## linux@horizon.com, 2006-02-24 00:29 Subject: Re: [PATCH] New git-seek command with documentation and test. Message-ID: <20060224002915.17331.qmail@science.horizon.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20060224002915.17331.qmail%40science.horizon.com ``` The annoying thing about temporary branch names like "bisect" and "seek" is that: a) They clutter up the nae space available to the repository user. Users have to know that those are reserved names. b) If a repository is cloned while they're in use, they might get into a "remotes" file, with even more confusing results. This is somewhat heretical, but how about making a truly unnamed branch by having .git/HEAD *not* be a symlink, but rather hold a commit ID directly? It's already well established that files in the .git directory directly are strictly local to this working directory, so it seems a much better home for such temporary state. Admittedly, this requires more invasive edits (particularly adding a third legitimate case to validate_symref()), but it seems to make more sense. And be ultimately simpler than workarounds for the above problems. Just loosen the rules from ".git/HEAD must be a symlink" to ".git/HEAD must be a symlink before you can check in". Yes, I know it's radical. At least I'm not questioning the power and efficacy of indulgences. :-) ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2006-02-24 00:54 Subject: Re: [PATCH] New git-seek command with documentation and test. Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0602240152490.32472%40wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de In-Reply-To: <20060224002915.17331.qmail@science.horizon.com> ``` Hi, On Fri, 23 Feb 2006, linux@horizon.com wrote: > This is somewhat heretical, but how about making a truly unnamed branch by > having .git/HEAD *not* be a symlink, but rather hold a commit ID directly? Not heretical. How do you intend to switch branches now? And how do you intend to record the starting point of git-seek to which you want to return to? All leads back to .git/HEAD pointing to a branch (or whatever you want to call it). And BTW, .git/HEAD is no symlink these days, but a symref. Hth, Dscho ``` ## linux@horizon.com, 2006-02-24 01:23 Subject: Re: [PATCH] New git-seek command with documentation and test. Message-ID: <20060224012312.25603.qmail@science.horizon.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20060224012312.25603.qmail%40science.horizon.com In-Reply-To: ``` > Not heretical. How do you intend to switch branches now? Point .git/HEAD at the branch like usual. .git/HEAD would not be a symref *only* when on the unnamed temporary branch (which doesn't accept commits). > And how do you intend to record the starting point of git-seek to > which you want to return to? Te same way it's done now for git-seek or git-bisect: by copying the old HEAD to a temporary location like .git/head-name. > All leads back to .git/HEAD pointing to a branch (or whatever > you want to call it). In the usual case, yes it should. Any time you want to be able to develop on a branch, you need .git/HEAD pointing to a branch. You only make it point to a commit directly is when exploring the history with no intention of developing from it. (Note that you can easily change your mind with a simple "git checkout -b ".) > And BTW, .git/HEAD is no symlink these days, but a symref. Yes, I'm sorry; I was just being lazy with my terminology. ``` ## H. Peter Anvin, 2006-02-24 06:53 Subject: Re: [PATCH] New git-seek command with documentation and test. Message-ID: <43FEAD62.6050302@zytor.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/43FEAD62.6050302%40zytor.com In-Reply-To: <20060224002915.17331.qmail@science.horizon.com> ``` linux@horizon.com wrote: > The annoying thing about temporary branch names like "bisect" and "seek" > is that: > a) They clutter up the nae space available to the repository user. > Users have to know that those are reserved names. > b) If a repository is cloned while they're in use, they might get > into a "remotes" file, with even more confusing results. > > This is somewhat heretical, but how about making a truly unnamed branch by > having .git/HEAD *not* be a symlink, but rather hold a commit ID directly? > It's already well established that files in the .git directory directly > are strictly local to this working directory, so it seems a much better > home for such temporary state. > It might be easier to just reserve part of the namespace, e.g. ".bisect" and ".seek" instead. -hpa ``` ## Andreas Ericsson, 2006-02-24 10:11 Subject: Re: [PATCH] New git-seek command with documentation and test. Message-ID: <43FEDBE4.8040200@op5.se> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/43FEDBE4.8040200%40op5.se In-Reply-To: <43FEAD62.6050302@zytor.com> ``` H. Peter Anvin wrote: > linux@horizon.com wrote: > >> The annoying thing about temporary branch names like "bisect" and "seek" >> is that: >> a) They clutter up the nae space available to the repository user. >> Users have to know that those are reserved names. >> b) If a repository is cloned while they're in use, they might get >> into a "remotes" file, with even more confusing results. >> >> This is somewhat heretical, but how about making a truly unnamed >> branch by >> having .git/HEAD *not* be a symlink, but rather hold a commit ID >> directly? >> It's already well established that files in the .git directory directly >> are strictly local to this working directory, so it seems a much better >> home for such temporary state. >> > > It might be easier to just reserve part of the namespace, e.g. ".bisect" > and ".seek" instead. > Ach, no. Not specific names. ^\.-.* would be acceptable, but I sometimes use '.name' or '-name' to mark a temporary branch. Making .- or some such reserved would perhaps make sense, but not with specific names. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 ```