Re: [PATCH] New git-seek command with documentation and test.

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.  :-)

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

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 <branch>".)

And BTW, .git/HEAD is no symlink these days, but a symref.

Yes, I'm sorry; I was just being lazy with my terminology.

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

H. Peter Anvin wrote:

linux@horizon.com wrote:

quoted

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