From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: Local tag killer Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: 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> <524A3BB6.9060808@xiplink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Michael Haggerty , Johan Herland , Jeff King , Junio C Hamano , Git mailing list , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Carlos_Mart=EDn_Nieto?= , Michael Schubert To: Marc Branchaud X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 01 05:28:21 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 1VQqdJ-00037U-Eb for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2013 05:28:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755828Ab3JAD2R (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:28:17 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:51782 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755489Ab3JAD2R (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:28:17 -0400 Received: from yoda.home ([70.83.209.44]) by VL-VM-MR005.ip.videotron.ca (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-22.01 64bit (built Apr 21 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MTZ00GCJ0B4ZW50@VL-VM-MR005.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xanadu.home (xanadu.home [192.168.2.2]) by yoda.home (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6108E2DA00F0; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:28:16 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <524A3BB6.9060808@xiplink.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Marc Branchaud wrote: > 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. But with my proposal, you'd get a message saying that the tag "baz" is ambigous, and that you'd have to use either "libfoo/baz" or "libbar/baz". The current flat namespace makes many things virtually impractical indeed, even with the kernel workflow I described. Nicolas