threads / patch / 62738

patch, 5 partsRE: [PATCH 5/5] remote: announce removal of "branches/" and "remotes/"

Subject: RE: [PATCH 5/5] remote: announce removal of "branches/" and "remotes/"

## tl;dr

2 messages between Jan 4, 2025 and Jan 6, 2025. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 1people: 2as markdown or json

D. Ben Knoble· Jan 4, 2025, 15:36 UTC · lore
Show 7 quoted lines
> +As our documentation mentions, these directories are not to be found in modern
> +repositories at all and most users aren't even aware of these mechanisms. They
> +have been deprecated for almost 20 years and 14 years respectively, and I am
> +not aware of any reason why anybody would want to use these mechanisms.
> +Furthermore, the ".git/branches/" directory is noadays misleadingly named and
> +may cause confusion as "branches" are almost exclusively used in the context of
> +references.
s/noadays/nowadays

Is the first-person intended? "I am not aware" reads like editorial that doesn't match with the rest of the document (either "we" or technical-passive voice).

(PS hopefully my mail client will get this to the right place)
-- 
D. Ben Knoble
Patrick Steinhardt· Jan 6, 2025, 07:51 UTC · re: D. Ben Knoble · lore

Re: [PATCH 5/5] remote: announce removal of "branches/" and "remotes/"

On Sat, Jan 04, 2025 at 10:36:10AM -0500, D. Ben Knoble wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> > +As our documentation mentions, these directories are not to be found in modern
> > +repositories at all and most users aren't even aware of these mechanisms. They
> > +have been deprecated for almost 20 years and 14 years respectively, and I am
> > +not aware of any reason why anybody would want to use these mechanisms.
> > +Furthermore, the ".git/branches/" directory is noadays misleadingly named and
> > +may cause confusion as "branches" are almost exclusively used in the context of
> > +references.
> 
> s/noadays/nowadays
Thanks, will fix.
> Is the first-person intended? "I am not aware" reads like editorial that doesn't
> match with the rest of the document (either "we" or technical-passive voice).

Hm. Yes, it was intended initially, mostly because I wanted to stress that this is *my* finding and may not reflect the whole project's stance. But while that would've been fine in a commit message, I think you're right and it's less sensible in a committed document. After all, the review process should ensure that the project also agrees with my finding, and at that point it does make sense to say "we".

> (PS hopefully my mail client will get this to the right place)

Seems like it did make it to the right place. There is one weirdness though: your mail client sets the "Reply-To" header to the message ID of the cover letter somehow, so when replying I don't send it to you but I instead send it to [1].

[1]: 20241211-pks-remote-branches-deprecation-v1-5-1431e2369135@pks.im
Patrick

← back to recent threads