On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:55:12AM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2019, at 11:10 PM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) > > <richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote: > > And see above for the type of fetch spec you'd need to pull and see them > > locally, with the structure I suggest, you can even write > > > > fetch = refs/vendors/ibm/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/ibm/* > > > > and only the ibm sub-part of that hierarchy would be fetched. > > IMO, it is valuable to have user and vendor branches under default > refs/heads/* hierarchy. I find it useful to see that IBM's or Arm's branches > were updated since I last pulled from upstream. The fact that branches were > updated means that there are development I may want to look at or keep note > of.
Yes. And while that can be configured, that has to be done every time someone makes a new clone. And inevitably people will screw this up, and inevitably it causes more problems than it helps when people have different configurations for this. > I feel strongly about vendor branches, and much less strongly about user > branches. Individual users can be less careful in following best git > practices, can commit random stuff and rewrite history of their branches. Absolutely. This should be encouraged even, imo: people should make their "feature" branches contain exactly what they intend to commit. Segher
