On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 02:55:57PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. Right, I think that is totally fine for the current uses. I guess my question was: do you envision cutting the interface down to only the oids to bite us in the future? I was on the fence during past discussions, but I think I've come over to the idea that the refnames actively confuse things. -Peff
