From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] A handful of "branch description" patches Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:53:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20110923205319.GA28802@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vy5xi4y3m.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <1316729362-7714-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <4E7C49CF.60508@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20110923201824.GA27999@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vk48zt211.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Michael J Gruber , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Sep 23 22:53:28 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R7CkR-0007XG-GS for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:53:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752473Ab1IWUxW (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:53:22 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:41828 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752191Ab1IWUxW (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:53:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 20635 invoked by uid 107); 23 Sep 2011 20:58:22 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:58:22 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:53:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vk48zt211.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 01:52:10PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > A more fundamental issue I have with this is that names of the refs are > local by nature (what I call "master" branch is not "master" to you, but > rather it is "origin/master" or "jch/master") while notes is meant to be > the mechanism to share. The following shares the same issue, but at least > it does not abuse "notes", so in that sense it may be cleaner at the > design level... Good point. For that reason, your config-based solution perhaps makes more sense. -Peff