On 20 Aug 2012, at 13:32, Alexey Muranov wrote:

> The problem of mapping branch names to file paths looks to me very similar to 
> the problem of mapping URLs to file paths for static web sites, so i would 
> propose to use the same solution: add a special extension to distinguish a 
> file from a directory, for example ".branch" and ".tag" (like ".html" in the 
> case of URL).  This would allow having both branches "next" and "next/foo" 
> with refs stored in files "next.branch" and "next/foo.branch".  This will 
> look very clear and familiar to people not specialist in Git, but familiar 
> with static web sites.  The only limitation this would introduces is that 
> branch names "foo.branch" would need to be forbidden.  If the extension is 
> optional, this makes the new rule almost compatible with the current one, 
> except if somebody is currently using branches named like "foo.branch" or 
> "next.branch/foo".

Another possible choice for the extensions: ".~br" and ".~tg" (to keep 
readability of file names and allow all currently allowed branch names).--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to