On Jan 11, 2008 8:52 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > 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"). > We *cannot* agree on one definition of "origin": there is no single server accessible by all, but use of submodules currently *requires* that each repo's upstream be given the nickname "origin". With this change, I can enforce that each server has a unique nickname and that one unique nickname per server is used across the program. Absent this, I cannot and end up having to have everyone translate "origin" into what it means for them. SHA-1's are absolutely unique, but what do you do when "origin" does not have acdc101? I want to know that server-x@xxxxxxx doesn't have it, while server-y@xxxxxxxx does. This is the frequent problem in conversation, and is the reason we have to be able to talk about the particular upstream server. This change does not eliminate the ability to obscure multiple different server names using "origin" for those who think that is the best way to do things, it just eliminates the requirement for doing so. Mark - 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
