On Fri, 5 May 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > So I'd argue that (a) yes, we do want to have the "proto porcelain" that > > sets remote branch information without the user having to know the magic > > "git repo-config" incantation, or know which file in .git/remotes/ to > > edit, but that (b) it's even more important to try to decide on what the > > remote description format _is_. > > Is it format you care about or the semantics? I _personally_ care about the semantics, but not very deeply - since I tend to actually have just one main branch, and a couple of throw-away ones if I ended up working on something. But I think that for this thing to become useful, we want to care about the format - or at least the interface to the different users (with the acknowledgement that "users" should often be porcelain above us). Right now we've basically had people hand-editing the remotes files, and I think cogito still uses the older branches format that came from cogito in the first place. I think we should just try to decide on a config file format, and make it easy for cogito etc to use it. 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