On Wednesday 15 November 2006 15:41, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Andy Parkins wrote: > > * Don't use the name "origin" twice. In fact, don't use it at all. In > > a distributed system there is no such thing as a true origin. > > I agree, sort of. Not because"origin" is ambigous as a name. But > rather because there is a magic translation from "master" to "origin", > and I think this is wrong to do that. > > As mentioned elsewhere (and let's start using "get" instead of "pull" as > suggested by Johannes), a "get" should probably always create a branch > group even if it contains only one branch. This way the remote branch > called "master" will still be called "master" locally, under the branch > group used to represent the remote repository. And if a local name is > not provided then let's just call it "default". This way, amongst the > remote references, there would be a "default/master" that would be used > when nothing else is provided by the user. So... > > git get repo.com/time_machine.git > > would create a local branch named "remotes/default/master" if the remote > repo has only a master branch. Why not call it remotes/repo.com/time_machine.git/master and have a DEFAULT_ORIGIN that is a symref to it in the same way as HEAD is a symref to a local branch -- Alan Chandler http://www.chandlerfamily.org.uk - 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