Hi, On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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 > > _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. I almost missed that you reference me in the email (often, I just delete the email if the Subject is of no interest to me). I did not worry about broken porcelain. I saw broken porcelain. But that is more a broken concept than broken porcelain: in a distributed environment, there is no way to have a reliable tag. Think about it: whenever you have two different versions of a tag, you cannot know which one is the correct one. But my worries do not matter at all for local tags. Conceptually, however, the last point of a svnimport should *never* be a tag, but *always* a head. Ciao, Dscho - : 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