Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> And in [3] I noted that we introduced the word "branches" into
> protocol-v2.txt for the first time without defining what it means
> (presumably just refs/heads/*, but then let's say so...). There was a
> reply promising clarification, but I note that v7 still just says
> "branches".
I do not think it so bad to mention "branch" in the part that
explains things to humans in the terminology they are used to. It
is a different matter to introduce EBNF terminal <branch> without a
proper definition of the word, but I od not think we are doing so
here.
I however have to agree with the need to tighten what gets sent;
that is why a suggested replacement in my earlier review phrased it
this way:
unborn
If HEAD is a symref pointing to an unborn branch <b>, the
server reports it as "unborn HEAD symref-target:refs/heads/<b>"
in its response.
to make it clear that a full refname is sent for the pointee by
HEAD.
Thanks.
