On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Marc Branchaud wrote: > On 13-09-30 06:44 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Marc Branchaud wrote: > > > > > On 13-09-30 04:08 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > Again, in the cases where there is actually a SHA1 conflict between all > > > > possible tags that match a tag short-end then listing them and asking > > > > the > > > > user to be more explicit is the right thing to do. But that should be a > > > > very rare case in practice, and designing for making this case easy is > > > > the wrong approach. > > > > > > > > Instead, the common case of multiple remotes with duplicated tag names > > > > referring to the same thing _and/or_ multiple remotes with distinct tags > > > > names is what should be made easy to use with no extra steps. > > > > > > Again, I don't think that's the common case. I think it's just as likely > > > for > > > there to be multiple remotes with duplicate tag names that refer to > > > different > > > objects. > > > > Why do you say so? I'm curious to know what kind of work flow would do > > that in practice. > > The use case I have in mind is where a project makes use of other projects, > for example an application that uses some libraries. The application's > repository could contain the full histories of the libraries, each > subtree-merged into a different directory. > > So maybe that's not so common these days, but the current flat tag namespace > makes it pretty much impractical. But with my proposal, you'd get a message saying that the tag "baz" is ambigous, and that you'd have to use either "libfoo/baz" or "libbar/baz". The current flat namespace makes many things virtually impractical indeed, even with the kernel workflow I described. Nicolas -- 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