On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:03:39 -0800 Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > There is no "get it right most of the time" that would apply to > every workflow. We should just admit that no default layout and > configuration would suit everybody's needs. What we should do > is to try to capture a handful useful patterns and make it easy > for people to apply those canned patterns. Consider it admitted ;o) But there is no need to have just a single configuration that suits everybody. For instance, nobody is saying to do away with the current default in favor of use-separate-remotes. That is why someone saying "Nak" to a feature where all branches are checked out locally on clone is "rash". Because it _is_ valuable to some workflows. There is no reason Git could not support it. If it gets in the way of some workflows, then we just make it a configuration option. However, I don't feel strongly about this particular option, if you notice in my email I merely suggested it for discussion. But by the same token, Git should _better_ support Shawn's example workflow where currently Git makes him delete a bunch of branches and edit the remotes/origin file every time after cloning. It would be rash of me to send out a Nak for such an improvement just because I don't need that feature. All that remains is coming to some consensus on which set of options should be enabled for new Git users. Once someone is up to speed, they can enable whichever options support their workflow. But once they've enabled those options, Git should do it's best to support that workflow without a lot of manual intervention most of the time. That's what the options I was suggesting would do for some workflows. Sean - 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