From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E72E186E20 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 22:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718405290; cv=none; b=GpWk/YzttMQA5xPNB95oHwdG+O2UsGlA1Jb8Ag13HOW1rag5O/ZS7wXOIIWB3+inDCrdAQu2M32jJb65HjWJ0SjgGemqK/hjFAYv4lwV0Cz5wDwQfGNFIOt8GAcl08xlNAtA4ydo9euvYWmkHj8Qa2EjsLFVA9znIhNL5x1rfTU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718405290; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ttxzN3K2TdlIBEXo9EDx+H2LGjimLuP08/E4zOnVXVk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=s1B4P5VVLQoZfsqPh8p3lAYXJ6rYHjJ8eOSVQxKdnqU1r0wWcVmOe3R02NpDE2y1IkJQIrv2CJH48RP5hbTZB/ME9i2eJTkG1HAW8Zn4N4uzoq9pzPbyEdz4Z73PnGXB1ZRTPEmwB/wbwrINaAO7xGF9gx0ajjvYkBi4ntnlIYA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=KD+Aqsn7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="KD+Aqsn7" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9507734F77; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:46:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ttxzN3K2TdlIBEXo9EDx+H2LGjimLuP08/E4zO nVXVk=; b=KD+Aqsn7eiY2U9bjYWQAHK1E9MrRwUSAmJ0Nhf7ymHr6yh8dzektns LZd02TWnN1BCkWC0n8314DSwIR3udoyipxd6EoPT71w8Be7tulMS/uOCDIFsXgUG nAVvw/H0iwgL8ekIckBk7QDKqODU+Aup88yvxf0scqtJez6nyOBHU= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD8B34F76; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:46:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.204.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F01F334F75; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:46:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] show-ref: introduce --branches and deprecate --heads In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:42:17 +0000") References: <20240603200539.1473345-1-gitster@pobox.com> <20240604220145.3260714-1-gitster@pobox.com> <20240604220145.3260714-4-gitster@pobox.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:46:31 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F297FEFC-2A9F-11EF-A45C-5B6DE52EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Elijah Newren writes: > ...or maybe my argument breaks down because `HEAD` is more prominent > and tends to be used by users more (`git reset --hard HEAD`, `git > checkout HEAD~1`), and thus there's an argument it already is somewhat > aligned with user terminology? Yeah, you are correct to say that HEAD is a lot more prominent than "refs/heads/". "git branch --list" does not expose the "refs/heads/" part (but "git for-each-ref" does), but you'd see HEAD in many places (e.g. "git show -s " gives the --decorate output that says "HEAD -> master" etc.). Of course we _could_ plan to rename "HEAD" to something else, like "CURRENT" and deal with the fallout, and then rename "refs/heads/" to "refs/branches/", but for what cost to achieve what benefit? The tradeoff does not look all that good to me. So I'd say renaming --heads to --branches would probably be a good place to stop, at least for now.