Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:05:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> I do not know how many of you regularly have interacted with 'pu' >> and now need to go through the same adjustment as I do. Sorry for >> using you as a guinea pig for an experiment for you know what to >> gauge the cost. > > Heh, I was wondering if you had any ulterior motives ;) > > Since we're on the topic of the cost of renaming branches, I was reading > a reply from you back in 2011 about how HEAD symrefs are the only valid > ones[0]. I'm not sure if the situation has changed since then but > perhaps we could officially expand the scope of symrefs to allow users > to essentially alias branches? It might reduce the cost of performing > branch renames by having a backwards compatible option. It would be one way to transition, adding a symref in refs/heads/pu pointing at refs/heads/seen, but that unfortunately defeats the whole point of the rename, to make room for pu/<topic> hierarchy for contributors with names, in which P and U appear as the first and the last capital letters, respectively. So, no, that won't be a solution, unfortunately. I have an unused branch 'pu/nomore' in the primary repository I work in, so that my accidental "git checkout -B pu jch" will fail, which also takes advantage of this D/F conflict preventing a ref from being created.
