Re: [PATCH] Multiple refs from the same remote in one git fetch

"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] writes:

BTW, does it still look like it's worth it the effort to lift the restriction,
or does fixing the error message to something like
"no such remote or duplicate ref %s"
make more sense to you?

I have been hesitant to claim that it does not make any sense to
use more than one tracking branch for the same remote branch,
because the only reason I might say so is because I haven't
thought of a good usage pattern to do so.

But apparently you do use more than one local branch to keep
track of one remote branch.  How do you use it for?  Do you feel
it is a good feature to be able to do that, or do you think it
is just a mistake and more sensible error message is what we
would really want?

Quoting r. Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Multiple refs from the same remote in one git fetch

"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

BTW, does it still look like it's worth it the effort to lift the restriction,
or does fixing the error message to something like
"no such remote or duplicate ref %s"
make more sense to you?

I have been hesitant to claim that it does not make any sense to
use more than one tracking branch for the same remote branch,
because the only reason I might say so is because I haven't
thought of a good usage pattern to do so.

But apparently you do use more than one local branch to keep
track of one remote branch.  How do you use it for?  Do you feel
it is a good feature to be able to do that, or do you think it
is just a mistake and more sensible error message is what we
would really want?

Well, what I was *trying* to do is simply add a more descriptive name for
the linus master branch to my existing tree.
So it seemed like an obvious idea to add

Pull: master:origin
Pull: master:linus_master

On a more theoretical level, in a shared repository development style, one might
imagine several people who want the branch to be called differently.
Another reason might be scripts using specific branch names where you
might want to be free to decide where a specific branch name points to.

Yea, I still feel it would be a good feature to have - I just wanted to
check there's no opposition to this.

-- 
MST

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

Quoting r. Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

[...]

quoted

I have been hesitant to claim that it does not make any sense to
use more than one tracking branch for the same remote branch,
because the only reason I might say so is because I haven't
thought of a good usage pattern to do so.

But apparently you do use more than one local branch to keep
track of one remote branch.  How do you use it for?  Do you feel
it is a good feature to be able to do that, or do you think it
is just a mistake and more sensible error message is what we
would really want?

Well, what I was *trying* to do is simply add a more descriptive name for
the linus master branch to my existing tree.
So it seemed like an obvious idea to add

Pull: master:origin
Pull: master:linus_master

Couldn't you do this via symlinks or symrefs? 

BTW. Do we support symrefs other than HEAD, and does reflog works with
symref heads, and symlinked heads?

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Quoting r. Jakub Narebski [off-list ref]:

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Multiple refs from the same remote in one git fetch

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

quoted

Quoting r. Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

[...]

quoted

quoted

I have been hesitant to claim that it does not make any sense to
use more than one tracking branch for the same remote branch,
because the only reason I might say so is because I haven't
thought of a good usage pattern to do so.

But apparently you do use more than one local branch to keep
track of one remote branch.  How do you use it for?  Do you feel
it is a good feature to be able to do that, or do you think it
is just a mistake and more sensible error message is what we
would really want?

Well, what I was *trying* to do is simply add a more descriptive name for
the linus master branch to my existing tree.
So it seemed like an obvious idea to add

Pull: master:origin
Pull: master:linus_master

Couldn't you do this via symlinks or symrefs? 

BTW. Do we support symrefs other than HEAD, and does reflog works with
symref heads, and symlinked heads?

How?

-- 
MST

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

quoted

quoted

Well, what I was *trying* to do is simply add a more descriptive name
for the linus master branch to my existing tree.

So it seemed like an obvious idea to add

Pull: master:origin
Pull: master:linus_master

Couldn't you do this via symlinks or symrefs? 

BTW. Do we support symrefs other than HEAD, and does reflog works with
symref heads, and symlinked heads?

How?

Have only "Pull: master:linus_master" as the pull line, and make origin
symlink (ln -s $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/linus_master $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/origin)
or symref (echo "ref: refs/heads/linus_master" > $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/origin)
or vice versa.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Quoting r. Jakub Narebski [off-list ref]:

Have only "Pull: master:linus_master" as the pull line, and make origin
symlink (ln -s $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/linus_master $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/origin)
or symref (echo "ref: refs/heads/linus_master" > $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/origin)
or vice versa.

Thanks.

-- 
MST