Johan Herland <> writes:

> I think I like "refs/peers/%1/heads/%*" better than
> "refs/peers/%1/heads/%2", since the latter sort of makes me wonder
> whether the 3rd, 4th, etc. components would be discarded.

Makes sense.

> I am not sure why we would want "refs/remotes/%1/%2" instead of
> "refs/remote/%*".

The former way makes it easier to see what "refs/peers/%1/heads/%2"
means, I think, but otherwise aren't they equivalent?  I do not see
a strong reason to favor one over the other.

> remote-tracking branch "baz" from remote "foo/bar", but we might say
> that's ok, because (a) multi-level remote names are so rare, and (b)
> the simple workaround of explicitly saying
> "refs/peers/foo/bar/heads/baz" would always be available in any case.

Sounds sensible.

And if you limit things that way, "%1" again starts to make sense,
as you are representing "the first path component" with it.

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

Reply via email to