Johan Herland wrote:
> FWIW, I've abandoned this patch, and don't care much about multi-level
> remote names anymore. They work in current git, and they will sort-of
> work with remote ref namespaces as well, although you will have to use
> full refnames when referring to their remote-tracking refs
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
wrote:
> Johan Herland wrote:
>> The disambiguation can probably be resolved, although the resulting
>> code will obviously be somewhat more cumbersome and ugly (and IMHO the
>> current code is plenty of that already...). Combine this with the
Johan Herland wrote:
> The disambiguation can probably be resolved, although the resulting
> code will obviously be somewhat more cumbersome and ugly (and IMHO the
> current code is plenty of that already...). Combine this with the
> problems of clobbering of the same remote-tracking ref (describe
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johan Herland writes:
>
>> Although we definitely support and encourage use of multi-level branch
>> names, we have never conciously tried to give support for multi-level
>> remote names. Currently, they are allowed, but there is no evidenc
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Johan Herland wrote:
>> Although we definitely support and encourage use of multi-level branch
>> names, we have never conciously tried to give support for multi-level
>
> s/conciously/consciously/
Thanks,
Johan Herland writes:
> Although we definitely support and encourage use of multi-level branch
> names, we have never conciously tried to give support for multi-level
> remote names. Currently, they are allowed, but there is no evidence that
> they are commonly used.
>
> Now, they do provide a so
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Johan Herland wrote:
> Although we definitely support and encourage use of multi-level branch
> names, we have never conciously tried to give support for multi-level
s/conciously/consciously/
> remote names. Currently, they are allowed, but there is no evidence
Although we definitely support and encourage use of multi-level branch
names, we have never conciously tried to give support for multi-level
remote names. Currently, they are allowed, but there is no evidence that
they are commonly used.
Now, they do provide a source of problems when trying to exp
8 matches
Mail list logo