(unknown)

From cd4366ed4e3f765c00310c35c0eabeccf433acdb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andy Parkins <redacted>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:47:19 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Use "up/" prefix for all the upstream branches
To: git@vger.kernel.org
X-TUID: aba1ff8a0c61615e
X-UID: 126
X-Length: 1359
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: [off-list ref]

To easily differentiate the read-only upstream branches, from normal branches,
default to cloning them with the prefix "up/" added to their branch names.
This also abandons the idea of an "origin" branch which is now simply
"up/master" and hence removes the special treatment that master was getting.
(cherry picked from 33d89375652222c41fbf225f1e1c3bfb38b755b2 commit)
Signed-off-by: Andy Parkins <redacted>
---
I'm sure this will be an unwanted patch.  However, I really do think it's 
important to highlight these upstream branches in some way.  I realise 
renaming "origin" is probably not going to fly, but perhaps it would be okay 
to have at least the non-origin branches prefixed?

 git-clone.sh |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/git-clone.sh b/git-clone.sh
index 3f006d1..ebd93da 100755
--- a/git-clone.sh
+++ b/git-clone.sh

@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ fi
 
 if test -z "$origin"
 then
-	origin=origin
+	origin=up/master
 fi
 
 # Turn the source into an absolute path if

@@ -389,7 +389,7 @@ Pull: refs/heads/$head_points_at:$origin
 			then
 				continue
 			fi
-			echo "Pull: refs/heads/${name}:$remote_top/${name}"
+			echo "Pull: refs/heads/${name}:$remote_top/up/${name}"
 		done >>"$GIT_DIR/remotes/$origin" &&
 		case "$use_separate_remote" in
 		t)

-- 
1.4.2.3

andyparkins@gmail.com wrote:

To easily differentiate the read-only upstream branches, from normal branches,
default to cloning them with the prefix "up/" added to their branch names.
This also abandons the idea of an "origin" branch which is now simply
"up/master" and hence removes the special treatment that master was getting.
(cherry picked from 33d89375652222c41fbf225f1e1c3bfb38b755b2 commit)
Signed-off-by: Andy Parkins <redacted>
---
I'm sure this will be an unwanted patch.  However, I really do think it's 
important to highlight these upstream branches in some way.  I realise 
renaming "origin" is probably not going to fly, but perhaps it would be okay 
to have at least the non-origin branches prefixed?

Check if "git clone --use-separate-remote" isn't what you want.

And please correct mail sending.
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

On 2006-10-25 16:10:02 +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:

My apologies to everyone for the constant noise I keep dumping on
the list. I promise I'm trying really hard to be good.

I always try sending the patch to myself first, since something almost
always goes wrong on the first try. This helps against most problems,
but certainly not all. :-)

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com

On Wednesday 2006 October 25 15:53, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Check if "git clone --use-separate-remote" isn't what you want.

I did try that, but then the branches don't appear in git branch.  I still 
like that they exist.

And please correct mail sending.

AHHHH!!! I thought I had.  Dagnamit; I think an upgrade in Debian overwrote my 
manual git-imap-send compile.  The git-imap-send bug was fixed in 
e0b0830726286287744cc9e1a629a534bbe75452, but doesn't seem to have made it 
into debian yet.

I'm getting so sick of looking like an idiot.

My apologies to everyone for the constant noise I keep dumping on the list.  I 
promise I'm trying really hard to be good.


Andy
-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE
andyparkins@gmail.com