Re: git branch --edit-description a custom file

[Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>]

Hi Peff

On 31/10/2019 20:07, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 07:53:18PM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> I'd love to see a consensus around putting remote versions of refs/foo under
>> refs/remote/<remote-name>/foo. To share notes I add a refspec that fetches
>> to refs/remote/<remote-name>/notes. It is a pain that 'git pull' wont merge
>> them for me though.
> 
> The trouble with that sort of scheme is that it conflicts with the
> current namespace scheme, which puts the remote "notes" branch in
> "refs/remotes/<remote-name>/notes". And it's not just a problem if you
> want to have a branch called "notes". Think about what "git fetch
> --prune" would do.

I was suggesting a convention of using refs/remote/ not refs/remotes/ 
for tracking remote refs that are not branches to avoid that problem. 
It's not ideal to have remote branches under a different namespace to 
all the other remote refs but it does avoid breaking current setups. I 
haven't thought it through but perhaps in the long run we could migrate 
remote branches to refs/remote/<remote-name>/heads/ and treat 
refs/remotes/<remote-name>/ as an alias for 
refs/remote/<remote-name>/heads/. As you say below we'd need to think 
about how to use remote tags as well.

> I do think the world would be a better place if we mapped (all or a
> subset of) the remote "refs/" into "refs/remotes/<remote-name>/". I.e.,
> really creating "refs/remotes/origin/heads" and even
> "refs/remotes/origin/tags". But we'd need to re-adjust the way that some
> ref lookups work (e.g., looking in refs/remotes/*/tags for tags).
> 
> There was some work by Johan Herland around the v1.8 time-frame, but it
> stalled:
> 
>    https://public-inbox.org/git/AANLkTi=yFwOAQMHhvLsB1_xmYOE9HHP2YB4H4TQzwwc8@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> And here's some later discussion:
> 
>    https://public-inbox.org/git/CA+P7+xpj+8DZ=K0pna299Mu3nsQ4+JV_JUK=WFzzAFnJN+Bkbg@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> So in short, I agree very much with the direction you're discussing, but
> I think there's some fundamental work that needs done first.

Thanks for the links, I'll have a read through them.

Best Wishes

Phillip

> -Peff
>