Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] for-each-ref: let upstream/push optionally remote ref name

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

>> >> -Also respects `:remotename` to state the name of the *remote* instead of
>> >> -the ref.
>> >> +Also respects `:remotename` to state the name of the *remote* instead
>> >> +of the ref, and `:remoteref` to state the name of the *reference* as
>> >> +locally known by the remote.
>> >
>> > What does "locally known by the remote" mean in this sentence?
>> 
>> Good question.  I cannot offhand offer a better and concise
>> phrasing, but I think can explain what it wants to describe ;-).
>
> Yep, described it well.
>
> Maybe "and `:remoteref` to state the name by which the remote knows the
> *reference*"?

I dunno.  

The original and your update both seem to come from a worldview
where there is a single conceptual thing called "reference" that is
shared between our repository and the remote repository we pull from
(or push to), and the name we call it is "refs/remotes/origin/devel"
while the name they use to call it is "refs/heads/devel".  If you
subscribe to that worldview, then the updated sentence might make it
clearer than the original.

But I do not share that worldview, and I am not sure (note: I am
truly unsure---it's not like I am convinced it is a good idea but
sugarcoating my expression, at least in this case) if subscribing to
the worldview helps users' understanding.

In my view "refs/remotes/origin/devel" is a reference we use to keep
track of (or "a reference that corresponds to") the reference they
have called "refs/heads/devel" at the remote, and these are two
separate entities, so it's not like "this single thing is called
differently by us and them".

Stepping back a bit; here is how the description begins.

    upstream::
            The name of a local ref which can be considered ``upstream''
            from the displayed ref.

So 'upstream' is like 'refs/remotes/origin/devel' in the example in
the message you are responding to.  Perhaps we can make it clear in
the description, and then add :remote* modifiers are about asking
where that remote-tracking branch comes from.  For example, instead
of these "Also respects...", something like:

    For a %(upstream) that is a remote-tracking branch, the name of
    the remote repository it is copied from can be obtained with
    %(upstream:remotename).  Simiarly, the branch at the remote
    repository whose tip is copioed to this remote-tracking branch
    can be obtined with %(upstream:remoteref) as a full refname.

may reduce the chance of confusion?