Ethan wrote:
>[1 <text/plain; ISO-8859-1 (7bit)>] >On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Ethan <[email protected]>wrote: >> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Ethan <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I think I understand the intent now. Yes, I think that's the right fix. >>> But should tracking branches be treated specially? >>> >> >> Attached is a revised patch which walks the directory tree in .refs/heads >> to "fake" the old behavior of "git branch -a". >> >More research reveals that there is also something called a packed ref, >which is not in those locations. If you have such things in your repository, >the above patch probably won't help you much. I don't know if I'll have a >chance to write up another patch any time soon, though. Probably the command "git show-ref" does the right thing with those.
