Re: [PATCH] Do not ignore hidden refs

[Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>]

On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:27:09AM CET, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I think, however, if we (collectively as all the Porcelain
> writers although I am not really one of them) are to support it,
> they should not make distinction to the core, and it should be
> handled with the agreed-upon convention.

I guess I agree.

> Personally I established a convention to treat heads/??/* as
> "private namespace" while using heads/* as public refs for my
> own work (I do that for git.git as people know, and I do that
> for my day job project as well).  I do not think it is a great
> enough convention to be promoted as the official BCP, but it has
> been good enough for me, especially commands like "show-branch"
> and "tag -l" understands the shell-style filegrobs (e.g
> "show-branch master heads/??/*" would show what's yet to be
> polished and merged).

That's way too arbitrary for my taste, I think I needn't explain why.
:-)


What about leading underscore?

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
The meaning of Stonehenge in Traflamadorian, when viewed from above, is:
"Replacement part being rushed with all possible speed."