On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Karl Hasselström wrote: > On 2007-10-19 07:38:22 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > Finally, one last question --- am I the only one who had to take a > > second look at the whether the arrow should be <- or ->? The > > question is whether we are saying "gitk is moving to include all of > > spearce/gitk"; but I could also see it stated that we are assigning > > refs/heads/gitk with refs/remotes/spearce/gitk, in which case the > > arrow should be reversed. Or maybe: > > > > ==> git://repo.or.cz/git/spearce.git > > * branch gitk := spearce/gitk (new) > > * branch maint := spearce/maint 1aa3d01..e7187e4 > > * branch master := spearce/master de61e42..7840ce6 > > * branch next := spearce/next 895be02..2fe5433 > > + branch pu := spearce/pu 89fa332...1e4c517 > > * branch todo := spearce/todo (new) > > I think the reasoning behind the "foo -> spearce/foo" syntax is that > "(refs/heads/)foo" in the remote repository has been fetched to > "(refs/remotes/)spearce/foo" in the local repository. Well, the important thing is that the _content_ is moving from the remote repository to the local one. That's how the arrow should be interpreted conceptually. The fact that technically we end up assigning the local ref with the remote value is a technical issue. Nicolas
