Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Do you have an opinion on whether for_each_alternate_refs() interface > should stop passing back refnames? By the "they may not even exist" > rationale in this sub-thread, I think it's probably foolish for any > caller to actually depend on the names being meaningful. I personally do not mind they were all ".have" or unnamed. The primary motivatgion behind for-each-alternate-refs was that we wanted to find more anchoring points to help the common ancestry negotiation and for-each-*-ref was the obvious way to do so; the user did not care anything about names.
