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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7081D1F852 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 19:14:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343798AbiBJTOT (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:14:19 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:49986 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1343812AbiBJTOR (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:14:17 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6FAD2607 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:14:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18D311971E; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:14:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=BCWWPotp/5g0OocWClW3FcorrT39fcWnk1fubT +tick=; b=uBIw9szuVmyyStgrp8Ldpy99WzRV4dEkQ4QqeA9xCDNo70y9riXjzG ebv9hUKtKo5HX+Yg7m4p2GQfIR+l9XyRowg4CGsD31rCVzhyg79Zra8V9Xs3GS9D G+zhU+EFAV2sIR7dtLDxhSq4LhvagBVS5PuRyrIPCjJOG5nU7c5ug= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E909311971D; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:14:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.185.212.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5267511971C; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:14:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Han-Wen Nienhuys Cc: Elijah Newren , Git Mailing List , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH] glossary: describe "worktree" References: Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:14:15 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Han-Wen Nienhuys's message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2022 19:36:49 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A3C658CE-8AA5-11EC-B6FE-5E84C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > on a tangent: I posted a patch to write MERGE_AUTOSTASH, > rebase-merge/autostash, etc. as refs. > Is that the right direction? They are read like refs, but they are > together in a directory with other bits of stateful data (similar to > what is appended to FETCH_HEAD). Perhaps I should rather change the > read path, so they're always read as files rather than refs? I think that would be a lot more preferrable. If a file is written to record pieces of info, among which an object name happens to be included, it does not have to be recorded as a ref. Especially if it is an ephemeral file like MERGE_AUTOSTASH and FETCH_HEAD.