From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08EE1F406 for ; Thu, 17 May 2018 03:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752119AbeEQDbP (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2018 23:31:15 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:44200 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751478AbeEQDbO (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2018 23:31:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 9944 invoked by uid 109); 17 May 2018 03:31:15 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Thu, 17 May 2018 03:31:15 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 31462 invoked by uid 111); 17 May 2018 03:31:21 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.1.3) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 16 May 2018 23:31:21 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 16 May 2018 20:31:11 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 20:31:11 -0700 From: Jeff King To: Sitaram Chamarty Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev , Martin Fick , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Derrick Stolee , Lars Schneider , git , Duy Nguyen Subject: Re: worktrees vs. alternates Message-ID: <20180517033110.GA13235@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <87h8n7bhro.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <1950199.Z2x8tXoTfI@mfick-lnx> <20180516192343.GB3417@sigill.intra.peff.net> <3289a942-3f0d-ff63-7eab-95fe06c4c0f6@linuxfoundation.org> <20180516193744.GA4036@sigill.intra.peff.net> <5156717b-6fc9-b792-dfa4-1ba48ac50333@linuxfoundation.org> <20180517004355.GA9431@sita-lt.atc.tcs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180517004355.GA9431@sita-lt.atc.tcs.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 06:13:55AM +0530, Sitaram Chamarty wrote: > I may have missed a few of the earlier messages, but in the last > 20 or so in this thread, I did not see namespaces mentioned by > anyone. (I.e., apologies if it was addressed and discarded > earlier!) > > I was under the impression that, as long as "read" access need > not be controlled (Konstantin's situation, at least, and maybe > Peff's too, for public repos), namespaces are a good way to > create and manage that "mother repo". > > Is that not true anymore? Mind, I have not actually used them > in anger anywhere, so I could be missing some really big point > here. The biggest problem with namespaces as they are currently implemented is that they do not apply universally to all commands. If you only access the repo via push/fetch, they may be fine. But as soon as you start doing other operations (e.g., showing the history of a branch in a web interface), you don't get to use the namespaced names anymore. I think a different implementation of namespaces could do this better. E.g., by controlling the view of the refs at the refs.c layer (or perhaps as a filtering backend). -Peff