Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Dear diary, on Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 03:07:01PM CEST, I got a letter
> where Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
>> IMHO this opens the door for shooting in your own foot. Isn't it much too
>> easy to make a mistake with that syntax?
> What mistake?
>> What is so wrong with git-clone not allowing you to name the HEAD
>> differently?
> Did you read the preceding discussion? When you are pushing from your
> master branch to a remote branch, it may well be called different over
> there.

The real question is why you would even want to do that.

Managing multiple heads and making sure which one is which even
on a single repository is a mental burden, at least to me.  When
you can name local and remote differently, the name mappings
also need to be managed in addition to that.  Yes, the mappings
can be automated by Porcelains, but that means we need to have
another configuration item around (which needs to be compatible
across Porcelains) to achieve that flexibility, but what does
that flexibility really buys you?

My gut feeling is that Johannes is right here, at least about
the send-pack side.  Storing "master" pulled from a remote under
a name different from the remote is a different story.  I do not
have much problem with that.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to