From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: How is working on arbitrary remote heads supposed to work in Cogito (+ PATCH)? Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:40:46 +0200 Message-ID: <20050729094046.GO24895@pasky.ji.cz> References: <20050728153506.GL14229@pasky.ji.cz> <20050728161815.GC17952@pasky.ji.cz> <7v1x5ic1pe.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050728183904.GA24948@pasky.ji.cz> <7v4qaeqrh3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050729070628.GA24895@pasky.ji.cz> <7vmzo6jbme.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050729081051.GH24895@pasky.ji.cz> <7vek9igfgw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jul 29 11:43:39 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DyRNd-0001Jy-IN for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:42:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261911AbVG2Jlk (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:41:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262550AbVG2Jlj (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:41:39 -0400 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:25613 "HELO machine.sinus.cz") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261911AbVG2Jkt (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:40:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 13868 invoked by uid 2001); 29 Jul 2005 09:40:46 -0000 To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vek9igfgw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-message-flag: Outlook : A program to spread viri, but it can do mail too. Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Dear diary, on Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 10:54:07AM CEST, I got a letter where Junio C Hamano told me that... > I however still suspect that you might be spreading chaos under the > name of more flexibility. I'm such a villain! ;-)) > The fact that you can push into it by definition means you have some > control over the other end, and obviously you are in total control on > your end. I do not see why you cannot rename branches where needed so > that whatever you are pushing match. That would also be one less > thing to keep track of for yourself [*1*]. You might get the push access rather lately in the process (this "lazy development privileges granting" is one of the point of distributed VCSes), at point where other people are used to pull from you and renaming your branch locally might mean some trouble. > Yes, I am aware that you brought up the example of pushing to > two separate places, but does it happen in practice that you can > push to two places, and at the same time neither of them > cooperates with you to make it easier for you to work on these > three machines by having the same head names? Yes, they may have incompatible but strict head naming conventions. And wouldn't it be easier to just have different head names rather than forcing to increase administrative load 'n stuff? > [Footnote] > > *1* In a hypothetical situation ``I use branch "b00" in this > repository to do XYZ work but I use branch "b24" in the other > repository for the same XYZ work'', Porcelain can keep track of > mapping between b00:b24 for you, but you still need to keep > track of b00:XYZ and b24:XYZ mapping in your head. I think 95% of the cases will be "master locally, non-master remotely". That's not really that difficult at all. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching someone. -- Alan Cox