Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I am surprised that you seem to have missed what I meant by "branch > names are local".... > This matters, a lot, because there is no easy way to partition a > namespace of names descriptive for humans without a central authority > to negotiate conflicts. I think we are in total agreement. The branch names are local, but the users may want to annotate to describe _the history_ they intend to build on it. Various ways to convey the description when the end product (i.e. the history built on it) is shiped were outlined in the series, so that the shipper can help the receiver understand the history. The information in the annotation (i.e. the _value_ of branch.$name.description) is something the shipper wants to share with the receiver, but the mapping between the local name of the branch the shipper used to build that history (i.e. the key "$name" in branch.$name.description) is immaterial in the end result. I do not think there is much more for me to add to this topic, as I think you covered all the important bases already. -- 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