On 04-08-2020 00:17, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> >> Of course. Though, having a symbolic ref of 'pu/seen' to 'seen' would >> hopefully not defeat the plan while being a little helpful ;) > > How would that be helpful? After all, I do want to allow us accept > a topic about 'seen' from author 'pu', and that pu/seen branch > should be different from the "not yet ready for 'next' but at least > the maintainer acknowledges that he has seen them" integration > branch whose name is 'seen'. > I thought 'seen' was blunt for a topic name in the sense that it doesn't convey what the topic does about 'seen'. So, having a symbolic ref of 'pu/seen' to 'seen' might be a good allusion to the fact that 'pu' has been renamed to 'seen' just by looking at the list of remote branches. -- Sivaraam
