On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:29:43PM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote: > > > I'd love to see a consensus around putting remote versions of refs/foo under > > > refs/remote/<remote-name>/foo. To share notes I add a refspec that fetches > > > to refs/remote/<remote-name>/notes. It is a pain that 'git pull' wont merge > > > them for me though. > > > > The trouble with that sort of scheme is that it conflicts with the > > current namespace scheme, which puts the remote "notes" branch in > > "refs/remotes/<remote-name>/notes". And it's not just a problem if you > > want to have a branch called "notes". Think about what "git fetch > > --prune" would do. > > I was suggesting a convention of using refs/remote/ not refs/remotes/ for > tracking remote refs that are not branches to avoid that problem. It's not > ideal to have remote branches under a different namespace to all the other > remote refs but it does avoid breaking current setups. I haven't thought it > through but perhaps in the long run we could migrate remote branches to > refs/remote/<remote-name>/heads/ and treat refs/remotes/<remote-name>/ as an > alias for refs/remote/<remote-name>/heads/. As you say below we'd need to > think about how to use remote tags as well. Oh indeed, I totally missed that subtlety. Sorry. > Thanks for the links, I'll have a read through them. Maybe I've managed to trick you into working on the greater refs/remotes organization problem, though. ;) -Peff
