Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Add 'promisor-remote' capability to protocol v2

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

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> Now I'm not against advertising a name and storing it in our config when
> we create the additional remote, for example by storing it as a separate
> key "remote.<generated>.promisor-name". But the name of the remote
> itself should not be controlled by the server, but should instead be
> generated by the client.

Thanks.  In an earlier round of the review, I noticed that the
remote side gives each promisor remote it suggests a name, but I
failed to realize that it is used without any say from the user at
the receiving end in the local repository---which is horrible.

The remote end wants to keep referring to a promisor remote in such
a way that both sides can understand when the same promisor remote
is referred to in the future, and I am OK for the protocol to allow
the remote to give a name to a promisor remote.  Such a name needs
to be kept separate from the name the end-user locally uses to refer
to the promisor remote (if they follow the suggestion given over the
protocol).  Do we need some mapping mechanism to do so?  A name N
the remote A gave to another remote B has to keep referring to
the remote we know as B today, even if we rename B to C.

Thanks.