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

2 messages from 2025-01-04 to 2025-01-06. Participants: D. Ben Knoble, Patrick Steinhardt.
Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/62738

## D. Ben Knoble, 2025-01-04 15:36

Subject: RE: [PATCH 5/5] remote: announce removal of "branches/" and "remotes/"
Message-ID: <0F4D68EB-27F9-4638-98CD-02515969D677@gmail.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/0F4D68EB-27F9-4638-98CD-02515969D677%40gmail.com

```
> +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, 2025-01-06 07:51

Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] remote: announce removal of "branches/" and "remotes/"
Message-ID: <Z3uLLv8DjEicYnNF@pks.im>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Z3uLLv8DjEicYnNF%40pks.im
In-Reply-To: <0F4D68EB-27F9-4638-98CD-02515969D677@gmail.com>

```
On Sat, Jan 04, 2025 at 10:36:10AM -0500, D. Ben Knoble wrote:
> > +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

```