Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jeff King wrote: > >> Hmm. The ref->name we are comparing here is the local side. So if I am >> fetching a new branch "foo" from the remote into a local >> "refs/remotes/origin/foo" tracking ref, it used to say: >> >> From ../parent >> * [new branch] master -> origin/master >> >> Now it says: >> >> From ../parent >> * [new ref] master -> origin/master >> >> while refs/remotes/* are not technically branches in our side, I think >> from the user's perspective, it is true that we have fetched a branch. >> Should we be calling refs/remotes/* branches, too? Should we be checking >> the remote's name for the item instead of the local one? > > The former sounds sensible. Then once the default refspec learns to > fetch into separate refs/remotes/origin/heads/* and > refs/remotes/origin/notes/* namespaces the logic could be updated to > write [new branch] or [new note collection] according to the > situation. If we give 'new branch' label for this case because we store it in our 'refs/remotes/*', a natural extension of it would be to redefine the rule to narrow it to 'refs/remotes/*/heads/*' for using 'branch' when we introduce 'new notes collection' label to give refs we are going to store in 'refs/remotes/origin/notes/*'. That is consistent with the former. If we give 'new branch' label because refs/heads/master on the originating end is what is shown on the line, a natural extension would be to use 'new notes collection' label when we are fetching from refs/notes/* on the originating end, and it does not matter where we store it, either our own refs/notes/* or refs/remotes/origin/notes/*. That is consistent with the latter. There is no concensus if refs/remotes/origin/notes/* hierarchy is a good idea or not, but your argument does not support either side between the former or the latter anyway, so I think it is irrelevant point to raise in this discussion. The choice between the two really depends on what information we are trying to convey with this label. Are we saying "Hey, we now have a new 'branch' on our side"? Or are we saying "We found a new 'branch' over there"? It is unclear and you can argue both ways. Although I personally think it is the latter, I do not have a strong opinion either way. I am actually fine with just saying '[new]' without indicating what kind at all, because the label is there only to fill the space where old..new object names are usually shown. We don't even say "[rejected branch]", just "[rejected]" in the same place. -- 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