On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Marc Branchaud wrote:
> On 13-09-30 06:44 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Marc Branchaud wrote:
> > > On 13-09-30 04:08 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > Again, in the cases where there is actually a SHA1 conflict between all
> > > > possible tags that match a tag short-end then listing them and asking
> > > > the
> > > > user to be more explicit is the right thing to do. But that should be a
> > > > very rare case in practice, and designing for making this case easy is
> > > > the wrong approach.
> > > >
> > > > Instead, the common case of multiple remotes with duplicated tag names
> > > > referring to the same thing _and/or_ multiple remotes with distinct tags
> > > > names is what should be made easy to use with no extra steps.
> > >
> > > Again, I don't think that's the common case. I think it's just as likely
> > > for
> > > there to be multiple remotes with duplicate tag names that refer to
> > > different
> > > objects.
> > Why do you say so? I'm curious to know what kind of work flow would do
> > that in practice.
> The use case I have in mind is where a project makes use of other projects,
> for example an application that uses some libraries. The application's
> repository could contain the full histories of the libraries, each
> subtree-merged into a different directory.
> So maybe that's not so common these days, but the current flat tag namespace
> makes it pretty much impractical.
But with my proposal, you'd get a message saying that the tag "baz" is
ambigous, and that you'd have to use either "libfoo/baz" or
The current flat namespace makes many things virtually impractical
indeed, even with the kernel workflow I described.
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