From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32E8C433E0 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 18:47:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10C022BF3 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 18:47:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="UtDY7Zfr" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726721AbgHCSrK (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2020 14:47:10 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:61175 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725945AbgHCSrJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2020 14:47:09 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8AFD33E3; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 14:47:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Tv71D84pl9pzn25tDigIvDlrGPI=; b=UtDY7Z frwHPn149/WRZxKe5tiq1wWPT14hXaQDgIYocYmplW5Ig4bj7PdQE4dW4AcKa1tE 1J0v2NHR5qKju8bP8lOYqmbA5PDA0TNfrZAtxsDXUDi/tI1xXSRoU2b3kSaS1nHk x3/xBFMYcPoEDPyest2eDqnAOXm7UiqXncOfU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=uxKYsvAmbeCikbUTS4KFrT93RaVYtXA1 /VAv1P2YwkDFUXh2fETueBxLnItWNBSsKCj4QW4nAAE7j90z4XJxL2aIi63bouHm dd4s1fNPVybJ19yacrNkqWsh6O/Ip9qJmoiux0a3kcczW/J4yjFsVzPG21UwdZoD nt0JA36jvGE= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75BED33E2; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 14:47:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBDC0D33E1; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 14:47:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Kaartic Sivaraam Cc: Matt McCutchen , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Renaming the "master" branch without breaking existing clones References: Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 11:47:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Kaartic Sivaraam's message of "Mon, 3 Aug 2020 23:50:29 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B9B9499A-D5B9-11EA-A0E7-843F439F7C89-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Kaartic Sivaraam writes: > On 03-08-2020 21:44, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> If we wanted to do this properly, I'd imagine we'd need to add a >> mechanism for repositories to convey "this branch that used to exist >> got renamed to this other name", not specifically for any "special" >> branch name (like 'master'). If we plan to never allow reusing the >> old and banned name, it probably is enough to turn the old name into >> a symbolic ref that points at the new name, e.g. in my repository >> >> $ git update-ref refs/heads/seen refs/heads/pu >> $ git update-ref -d refs/heads/pu >> $ git symbolic-ref refs/heads/pu refs/heads/seen >> >> which would create a symbolic reference 'pu' that points at 'seen' >> to say "pu used to exist but it is now seen". >> >> But that would not work well, as we must allow reusing the old name, >> as the primary point of renaming 'pu' to 'seen' in this project was >> so that we can accept topics from contributors whose anglicized name >> has 'p' and 'u' in capital letters as pu/$topicname branches. Having >> a symbolic ref 'pu' would defeat that plan. > > Of course. Though, having a symbolic ref of 'pu/seen' to 'seen' would > hopefully not defeat the plan while being a little helpful ;) How would that be helpful? After all, I do want to allow us accept a topic about 'seen' from author 'pu', and that pu/seen branch should be different from the "not yet ready for 'next' but at least the maintainer acknowledges that he has seen them" integration branch whose name is 'seen'.