On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:53 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:58:37PM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> > If I'm missing a good reason to keep everything under
>> > 'refs/notes/', feel free to ignore the second patch.
>>
>
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:58:37PM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > If I'm missing a good reason to keep everything under
> > 'refs/notes/', feel free to ignore the second patch.
>
> This has been discussed a couple of times on this list, but
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> The second commit makes the expansion less strict about the location
> of note refs. In his initial mail introducing 'git notes', Johan says
> that note refs should live under 'refs/notes' [1]. This seems like a
> good place for local notes
From: "W. Trevor King"
I was recently confused when
$ git notes merge -v refs/remotes/origin/notes/commits
failed to do (or print) anything. It turns out that note refs must
live under 'refs/notes/', so my command line ref was expanding to
refs/notes/refs/remotes/origin/notes/commits
whi
4 matches
Mail list logo