From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E0C1F461 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 05:29:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726878AbfGBF3l (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 01:29:41 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:57048 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1725981AbfGBF3k (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 01:29:40 -0400 Received: (qmail 30658 invoked by uid 109); 2 Jul 2019 05:29:41 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 05:29:41 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 11845 invoked by uid 111); 2 Jul 2019 05:30:33 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 01:30:33 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 02 Jul 2019 01:29:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 01:29:39 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: Derrick Stolee , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] check_everything_connected: assume alternate ref tips are valid Message-ID: <20190702052938.GC16344@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20190628101131.GA22862@sigill.intra.peff.net> <601d8561-6e24-559c-6fbb-fa25a7389fa0@gmail.com> <20190629074348.GA5080@sigill.intra.peff.net> <418213f2-82d6-f7bd-7379-7f20f0e83084@gmail.com> <20190701125945.GB4704@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190701131713.GA25349@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190701170245.GA54693@TaylorsMBP5815.attlocal.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190701170245.GA54693@TaylorsMBP5815.attlocal.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 12:02:45PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > One thing that I didn't catch in my initial review that I am seeing now > is the ".alternate" marker. Why did you choose this? I was thinking that > ".have" would make more sense since it's consistent with what's shown in > the ref advertisement, but I think that actually ".alternate" is a > _better_ choice: the two really do refer to different things. Yeah, I had called these ".have" originally, but decided that was too tied up with the current users, and not with the concept. I think keeping the leading "." is worthwhile as that's an invalid refname. I also thought about an empty string, but it's probably more informative to show _something_. After all, the user would not see these unless they specifically asked for them _and_ used something like --source, so presumably it's a useful piece of information at that point (I don't know of any other way to show these names except for --source). I suppose one other option would be to name them after the oid itself. So with --source you'd find out that 1234abcd came from 1234abcd (duh), but also that its children came from 1234abcd. Maybe that has value. I dunno. It would be easy to change, but I'd also be OK punting until somebody comes up with a compelling use case. -Peff