brian m. carlson wrote: > On 2021-04-24 at 03:44:34, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > I see. > > > > That makes me think we might want a converter that translates > > (local)main -> (remote)master, and (remote)master -> (local)mail > > everywhere, so if your eyes have trouble seeing one, you can configure > > git to simply see the other... Without bothering the rest of the word. > > > > I'll give that idea a try. > > I don't believe this is a helpful response, and judging from the > follow-up, neither did the OP. That's fine, you don't need to find it useful. > They're not trying to do anything dangerous, improvident, or harmful > to others and they are trying to solve a problem that many people have > and that is due to an inherent limitation in Git (its inability to > rename remote branches easily[0]), so there's no reason to respond in > this way. What is "in this way"? Proposing another solution more people (including me) might find simpler, and more viable? > There is a difference between being firm and steadfast, such as when > responding to someone who repeatedly advocates an inadvisable technical > approach, and being rude and sarcastic, especially to someone who is > genuinely trying to improve things, and I think this crosses the line. I wasn't rude. You are free to disagree. > [0] Regardless of how you feel about this _particular_ rename, one would > want the ability to do this to preserve reflogs for _all_ remote > renames, and so this would be a valuable and desirable feature to have > in Git anyway. I never claimed otherwise. It's perfectly fine for two people to work on two approaches to solve the same problem. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
