Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: >> Me neither, but once you start thinking about getting rid of the >> need to use one-file-per-ref filesystem, being able to maintain all >> refs, including the pseudo refs, in one r/w store backend, becomes a >> very tempting goal. From that point of view, I do not have problem >> with the idea to move _all_ pseudorefs to reftable. > > Yes, we're in agreement. > >> But I do have reservations on what Patrick, and the code he >> inherited from Han-Wen, calls "special refs" (which is not defined >> in the glossary at all), namely, refs.c:is_special_ref() and its >> callers. > > I do not want to add "special refs" to the glossary because ultimately > they should go away, with two exceptions: FETCH_HEAD and MERGE_HEAD. > Once we're there we can of course discuss whether we want to explicitly > point them out in the glossary and give them a special name. OK, I somehow got a (wrong) impression that you are very close to the finish line. If the intention is to leave many others still in the "special" category (for only the reasons of inertia), with a vision that some selected few must remain "special" with their own good reasons, then I am perfectly fine. Thanks.
