Re: Unresolved issues #2

On Fri, 5 May 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

So I'd argue that (a) yes, we do want to have the "proto porcelain" that 
sets remote branch information without the user having to know the magic 
"git repo-config" incantation, or know which file in .git/remotes/ to 
edit, but that (b) it's even more important to try to decide on what the 
remote description format _is_.

Is it format you care about or the semantics?

I _personally_ care about the semantics, but not very deeply - since I 
tend to actually have just one main branch, and a couple of throw-away 
ones if I ended up working on something.

But I think that for this thing to become useful, we want to care about 
the format - or at least the interface to the different users (with the 
acknowledgement that "users" should often be porcelain above us).

Right now we've basically had people hand-editing the remotes files, and I 
think cogito still uses the older branches format that came from cogito in 
the first place. I think we should just try to decide on a config file 
format, and make it easy for cogito etc to use it.

		Linus