Re: What to expect after 0.99.8

[Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>]

On Monday 03 October 2005 02:14, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * Perhaps accept patches to introduce the concept of "patch flow
>   expressed as ref mappings" Josef has been advocating about.

This was about a central place to store local/remote ref mappings.
I proposed the Pull/Push lines in remote/ files changing to hold
these mappings, and putting the defaults into Pull-Default and
Push-Default.

I changed my mind: IMHO for simplicity, porcelain commands should
mostly deal with refspecs (default: current head), and thus,
above mappings should be stored per ref/head, not per remote repository.
I.e. I won't provide a patch for this.

But why did we choose to make git-pull/git-push
to accept a remote repository as first argument, and not a head/refspec
in the first place? [Of course, this needs the remote repository be
retrievable by head name: see branches/ files. And currently missing here is 
the distinction between fetch and push direction].

In the current state, it would be better to get rid of branches/
parsing in GIT at all: By keeping it in, we force Cogito to keep the current
format.
[BTW: the git-push man page is wrong about branches/: the name of the file
in branches/ corresponds to a local refspec, and not to a remote name]

Josef