On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > > Personally I'm all for namespace separation. I'm assuming the script has the > tracker-branch hardcoded anyway, so I don't really understand why it would be > necessary to keep other refs in a separate directory and, if it *is* > necessary, why that subdirectory can't be .git/refs/heads/svn. > > Eric mentioned earlier that the tracking-branch can't be committed to (ever), > so the user convenience for searching other directories should be nearly > non-existant. The thing about it being .git/refs/heads/svn/xyzzy is that then you can do git checkout svn/xyzzy and start modifying it. Which is exactly against the point: the thing is _not_ a branch and you must _not_ commit to it. It's much more like a tag: it's a pointer to the last point of an svn-import. So I think it should either _be_ a tag (although Dscho worries about some broken porcelain being confused by tags changing) or it should be in a namespace all it's own. Not under .git/refs/heads/ at any point, because it is _not_ a head of development. Linus - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html