Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
Right, I think that is totally fine for the current uses. I guess my
question was: do you envision cutting the interface down to only the
oids to bite us in the future?
I was on the fence during past discussions, but I think I've come over
to the idea that the refnames actively confuse things.
Alternates are sort-of repositories that you interact with via more
normal transports like fetch or push, and at the object store level
(i.e. the one that helps you build your local history) you do not
really care what refnames other people use in their repository.
E.g. it does not matter if a pull request to you asks you to pull
their 'frotz' branch or 'nitfol' branch, as long as the work they
did on that branch is what you expected them to do. And I think
"I am aware that I can get to the objects that are reachable from
these objects I can borrow from that alternate when I need them" is
quite similar in spirit; the borrower has even less need to be aware
of the refnames as there isn't even a need to "git pull" from it (at
that only one single point, you would care what name they used in
their pull request).
So, I think we probably are better off without names.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:41:18AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Right, I think that is totally fine for the current uses. I guess my
question was: do you envision cutting the interface down to only the
oids to bite us in the future?
I was on the fence during past discussions, but I think I've come over
to the idea that the refnames actively confuse things.
[ ... ]
So, I think we probably are better off without names.
Sorry for re-entering the thread a little later. I was travelling
yesterday, and was surprised when I discovered that our "grep | sed" vs.
"sed" discussion had grown so much ;-).
My reading of this is threefold:
1. There are some cosmetic changes that need to occur in t5410 and
documentation, which are mentioned above. Those seem self
explanatory, and I've applied the necessary bits already on my
local version of this topic.
2. The core.alternateRefsCommand vs transport.* discussion was
resolved in [1] as "let's use core.alternateRefsCommand and
core.alternateRefsPrefixes" for now, and others contributors can
change this as is needed.
3. We can apply Peff's patch to remove the refname requirement before
mine, as well as any relevant changes in my series as have been
affected by Peff's patch (e.g., documentation mentioning
'%(refname)', etc).
Does this all sound sane to you (and match your recollection/reading of
the thread)? If so, I'll send v3 hopefully tomorrow.
Sorry for repeating what's already been said in this thread, but I felt
it was important to ensure that we had matching understandings of one
another.
Thanks,
Taylor
[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqa7o6skkl.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/