Hi, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
> My understanding of .git/branches was that Cogito uses this as mapping of
> remote branches/heads to local branches/refs, and not to store shortcuts for
> remote git repositories.
That seems to be the case, yes.
I'd argue that the shortcut idea is inherently mor
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 11:41 +0200, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
> Perhaps we should call it "remoterefs/" instead?
>
How about .git/peers/ ?
--
Darrin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger
Josef Weidendorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My point being that I still can say
>>
>> git pull x some_non_default_head
>>
>> with a file "x" in .git/branches.
>
> Is this currently possible?
Not right now, but that is the plan.
> My understanding of .git/branches was that Cogito uses
Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd prefer $GIT_DIR/remotes/. And I propose another extension: Since the
> files stored therein right now contain only one string, it should
> be possible to add the default head(s) to the file.
That makes sense. Currently my arrangement is:
On Monday 08 August 2005 12:36, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
> > Your example defaults to the master head.
>
> My point being that I still can say
>
> git pull x some_non_default_head
>
> with a file "x" in .git/branches.
Is this currentl
Hi,
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
> Your example defaults to the master head.
My point being that I still can say
git pull x some_non_default_head
with a file "x" in .git/branches. Anyway, I don't care much either way, if
it be "remotes/" or "remoterefs/" or
"magic_ma
On Monday 08 August 2005 11:55, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
> > IMHO, $GIT_DIR/branches/ is really confusing.
> > Hmmm... in $GIT_DIR/branches/ there are named references to remote
> > (named) references.
>
> Not necessarily. The following is p
Hi,
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
> IMHO, $GIT_DIR/branches/ is really confusing.
> Hmmm... in $GIT_DIR/branches/ there are named references to remote (named)
> references.
Not necessarily. The following is perfectly valid:
echo "rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git > .
On Monday 08 August 2005 11:10, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > I hear a lot of people mention $GIT_DIR/branches/ is confusing.
> > Maybe we should rename it to $GIT_DIR/remote/ directory?
>
> I'd prefer $GIT_DIR/remotes/.
IMHO, $GIT_DIR/branches/
Hi,
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I hear a lot of people mention $GIT_DIR/branches/ is confusing.
> Maybe we should rename it to $GIT_DIR/remote/ directory?
I'd prefer $GIT_DIR/remotes/. And I propose another extension: Since the
files stored therein right now contain only one st
Although it is uncertain if we would keep .git/branches for
long, the shorthand stored there can be used for pushing if it
is host:path/to/git format, so let's make use of it. This does
not use git-parse-remote because that script will be rewritten
quite a bit for updated pulling.
Signed-off-by:
11 matches
Mail list logo
