Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:22:25AM -0400, Marc Branchaud wrote:
>
>> Why do we need any kind of "->" at all? How about simply (with an update to
>> "old-branch" for comparison to probably-more-common output):
>>
>> From github.com:pclouds/git
>> cafed0c..badfeed pclouds/old-branch
>> * [new branch] pclouds/2nd-index
>> * [new branch] pclouds/3nd-index
>> * [new branch] pclouds/file-watcher
>
> That covers the common case of:
>
> refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/pclouds/*
>
> but sometimes the remote and local names are not the same, and the
> mapping is interesting. Like:
>
> $ git fetch origin refs/pull/*/head:refs/remotes/pr/*
> ...
> * [new ref] refs/pull/77/head -> pr/77
>
> Or even:
>
> $ git fetch origin refs/pull/77/head refs/pull/78/head
> From ...
> * branch refs/pull/77/head -> FETCH_HEAD
> * branch refs/pull/78/head -> FETCH_HEAD
>
> So I think we need a scheme that can show the interesting mappings, but
> collapses to something simple for the common case.
True. One of the entries in Marc's example is easily misread as
"pclouds/2nd-index branch at its refs/heads/pclouds/2nd-index was
fetched to its usual place", when Marc wanted to say "they had
2nd-index branch at refs/heads/2nd-index, and it was copied to our
refs/remotes/pclouds/2nd-index".
So even though we might be able to make sure it is unambiguous
without "this -> that" ("->" is pronounced as 'became'), it is
easily misread.
--
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