Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Alternates are sort-of repositories that you interact with via more normal transports like fetch or push, and at the object store level (i.e. the one that helps you build your local history) you do not really care what refnames other people use in their repository. E.g. it does not matter if a pull request to you asks you to pull their 'frotz' branch or 'nitfol' branch, as long as the work they did on that branch is what you expected them to do. And I think "I am aware that I can get to the objects that are reachable from these objects I can borrow from that alternate when I need them" is quite similar in spirit; the borrower has even less need to be aware of the refnames as there isn't even a need to "git pull" from it (at that only one single point, you would care what name they used in their pull request). So, I think we probably are better off without names.
