2009/6/18 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > Santi Béjar <santi@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> One thing it just occurred to me is to return the explicit refspec >> instead of the tracking branch. So with the default config (after a >> clone): >> >> $ git remote tracking origin refs/heads/master >> refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/origin/master > > I think the output is sensible, instead of saying something like > 'origin/master'. OK. > > We can and should allow the end users to use abbreviated form as input to > us (either command line or configuration value) when it is unambiguous, OK. Moreover I think it also applies to the %(upstream) case I reported some days ago. > but when returning values for use by Porcelains, we should be strict and > precise to avoid ambiguities. > >> this makes a difference in case we want to allow returning all the >> matching tracking branch and not the first one with more than one >> branch, as: >> >> $ git config remote.origin.fetch --add +refs/heads/*:refs/remote/another/* >> >> $ git remote tracking origin refs/heads/master >> refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/origin/master >> refs/heads/next:refs/remotes/origin/next > > I am not sure what this example is doing. You asked about refs/heads/master > but you also talk about refs/heads/next? I guess you meant to say > > $ git remote tracking origin refs/heads/master > refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/origin/master > refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/another/master > > instead, judging from the next example? Yes. Santi -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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