On 20 Aug 2012, at 13:32, Alexey Muranov wrote: > The problem of mapping branch names to file paths looks to me very similar to > the problem of mapping URLs to file paths for static web sites, so i would > propose to use the same solution: add a special extension to distinguish a > file from a directory, for example ".branch" and ".tag" (like ".html" in the > case of URL). This would allow having both branches "next" and "next/foo" > with refs stored in files "next.branch" and "next/foo.branch". This will > look very clear and familiar to people not specialist in Git, but familiar > with static web sites. The only limitation this would introduces is that > branch names "foo.branch" would need to be forbidden. If the extension is > optional, this makes the new rule almost compatible with the current one, > except if somebody is currently using branches named like "foo.branch" or > "next.branch/foo".
Another possible choice for the extensions: ".~br" and ".~tg" (to keep readability of file names and allow all currently allowed branch names).-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
