On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 06:13:55AM +0530, Sitaram Chamarty wrote: > >> I may have missed a few of the earlier messages, but in the last >> 20 or so in this thread, I did not see namespaces mentioned by >> anyone. (I.e., apologies if it was addressed and discarded >> earlier!) >> >> I was under the impression that, as long as "read" access need >> not be controlled (Konstantin's situation, at least, and maybe >> Peff's too, for public repos), namespaces are a good way to >> create and manage that "mother repo". >> >> Is that not true anymore? Mind, I have not actually used them >> in anger anywhere, so I could be missing some really big point >> here. > > The biggest problem with namespaces as they are currently implemented is > that they do not apply universally to all commands. If you only access > the repo via push/fetch, they may be fine. But as soon as you start > doing other operations (e.g., showing the history of a branch in a web > interface), you don't get to use the namespaced names anymore. > > I think a different implementation of namespaces could do this better. > E.g., by controlling the view of the refs at the refs.c layer (or > perhaps as a filtering backend). Yeah. Namespaces (that work for all commands) + worktree was my plan for centralizing repos (for one user). But I never got that far to look into making ref namespaces work for everything. -- Duy
