From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Branchaud Subject: Re: Local tag killer Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:04:22 -0400 Message-ID: <524A3BB6.9060808@xiplink.com> References: <52327E62.2040301@alum.mit.edu> <523D3FD2.4090002@alum.mit.edu> <20130924075119.GD7257@sigill.intra.peff.net> <5246C975.1050504@alum.mit.edu> <5247ACB9.40208@alum.mit.edu> <52499797.9030100@xiplink.com> <5249CDF7.4050904@xiplink.com> <5249E9C8.1070700@xiplink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Michael Haggerty , Johan Herland , Jeff King , Junio C Hamano , Git mailing list , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Carlos_Mart=EDn_Nieto?= , Michael Schubert To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 01 05:04:42 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VQqGQ-0003Zf-G2 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2013 05:04:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755378Ab3JADE0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:04:26 -0400 Received: from smtp154.ord.emailsrvr.com ([173.203.6.154]:60859 "EHLO smtp154.ord.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755251Ab3JADEZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:04:25 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp20.relay.ord1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 303321C013C; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:04:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp20.relay.ord1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: mbranchaud-AT-xiplink.com) with ESMTPSA id 851AD1C00DB; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:04:23 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 13-09-30 06:44 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Marc Branchaud wrote: > >> On 13-09-30 04:08 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>> Again, in the cases where there is actually a SHA1 conflict between all >>> possible tags that match a tag short-end then listing them and asking the >>> user to be more explicit is the right thing to do. But that should be a >>> very rare case in practice, and designing for making this case easy is >>> the wrong approach. >>> >>> Instead, the common case of multiple remotes with duplicated tag names >>> referring to the same thing _and/or_ multiple remotes with distinct tags >>> names is what should be made easy to use with no extra steps. >> >> Again, I don't think that's the common case. I think it's just as likely for >> there to be multiple remotes with duplicate tag names that refer to different >> objects. > > Why do you say so? I'm curious to know what kind of work flow would do > that in practice. The use case I have in mind is where a project makes use of other projects, for example an application that uses some libraries. The application's repository could contain the full histories of the libraries, each subtree-merged into a different directory. So maybe that's not so common these days, but the current flat tag namespace makes it pretty much impractical. M.