Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] Cloning with remote unborn HEAD

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:

And in [3] I noted that we introduced the word "branches" into
protocol-v2.txt for the first time without defining what it means
(presumably just refs/heads/*, but then let's say so...). There was a
reply promising clarification, but I note that v7 still just says
"branches".

I do not think it so bad to mention "branch" in the part that
explains things to humans in the terminology they are used to.  It
is a different matter to introduce EBNF terminal <branch> without a
proper definition of the word, but I od not think we are doing so
here.

I however have to agree with the need to tighten what gets sent;
that is why a suggested replacement in my earlier review phrased it
this way:

    unborn

    If HEAD is a symref pointing to an unborn branch <b>, the
    server reports it as "unborn HEAD symref-target:refs/heads/<b>"
    in its response.

to make it clear that a full refname is sent for the pointee by
HEAD.

Thanks.