On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 12:31:04AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I somewhat suspect that the patch was not applied because it also lacked > necessary adjustments to tests. With this patch, I think the tests would > fail. Yeah, see my follow-up patch. > Nevertheless, I think it is a good thing to do. But I am unsure about the > implementation. > > Shouldn't it instead feed what it got from the end user to the dwim > machinery, and make sure it dwims into refs/remotes/ hierarchy? I'm not sure that is all that different in practice than what is happening now. Mainly I did it the way I did so that I didn't touch the code path for detecting local branches. But assuming they are functionally identical, I think your patch is much more readable. > In other words, like this. Note that it would be much clearer to see > what's needed, if you want to extend it to refs/tags hierarchy ;-) I'm not sure adding "tag foo" will actually work, as it still has to make it through the bit where we parse FETCH_HEAD. I'm not sure if it would get mutilated to "commit foo" by that code or not. -Peff -- 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