Hi, On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Mark Levedahl wrote: > On Jan 11, 2008 7:03 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > IIUC your patch only replaces the term "origin" by something > > user-specifiable. I fail to see the use of it; care to explain what > > workflow is easier with your patches than without? > > Consider a project with several servers, each of which is *supposed* is > host the same project but due to lags in mirroring across airgaps, etc., > are never quite in sync. Now, we get on a teleconference and discuss > issues, find differences, and everyone reports that "origin" has x, but > in fact "origin" means different servers to almost everyone. Also > consider that only a small subset of the group really understands git, > most just follow cook-book recipes to get their work done and don't > understand what is going on. Okay, I now understand your intention much better than before. > This is my problem: "origin" is an abstraction that hides the different > server names in use and makes communication difficult, having everyone > use nicknames related to their particular upstream server reduces the > confusion. Unfortunately, I think this will just lead to even more confusion. Because those people following recipes without thinking will now use a name that does not even say the role, let alone the server. IOW I think that your patch worsens the situation you describe. IMHO you should optimise the communication by agreeing on one origin, or alternatively not talk about a server at all (which is made easy by the global uniqueness of commit names; just say "my tip is ac9b7192"). Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
