Re: Make 'git fsck' complain about non-commit branches

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

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> 
>> So far, the plumbing level did not care much about the Porcelain
>> convention, such as refs/heads and refs/remotes (you seem to
>> have forgot) are about "branches" and must point at commit
>> objects.
>
> Yeah. I'm not sure this is all a great idea, but I think they are correct 
> (and no, "refs/remotes/" would *not* have been correct). 

If we take that "plumbing knows much more about Porcelain
convention" shift-of-paradigm all the way, refs/remotes/ would
contain what are copied from refs/heads/ elsewhere, so checking
would have been correct.  If you are saying that we are not
prepared to take the change that far (which I tend to agree
with, as I like to keep the door open for people to do things
that at the first sight seem insane but later turns out to be
useful in workflows we haven't imagined so far), I'd agree that
not insisting on commitness under refs/remotes/ is correct.

Is that where your "refs/remotes would *not* have been correct"
comes from, or did I miss something more fundamental?