On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:46:46 -0800 Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > You can always say "git log refs/heads/next" even though you are > allowed to say "git log next". Maybe we should remove that > shorthand to make it consistent? I think not. Of course not. But why not add the shorthand to the other case to make it consistent? > The remote side can add things without your knowing, so > insisting on the exact match makes sense in a weird sort of > way. I'm sure there are technical reasons why things are they way they are, nothing weird about that. But looking in from the outside and not knowing what those reasons are, leads to an honest question if it's absolutely necessary for a user to have to learn about the internal "refs/heads" directory structure of Git. It would be nicer if they could just think in terms of branches and tags. > And this is a config file you would set once and then can forget > about it. I do not see a big deal about having to spell it > fully. It's not a huge deal, it's just one more slightly unexpected thing for a user to have to deal with in learning Git. It seems reasonable for a user to be able to refer to a remote branch as "remote/branch", and not "remote/refs/heads/branch". But if that simply can't be accommodated, so be it. 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