Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> So far, the plumbing level did not care much about the Porcelain >> convention, such as refs/heads and refs/remotes (you seem to >> have forgot) are about "branches" and must point at commit >> objects. > > Yeah. I'm not sure this is all a great idea, but I think they are correct > (and no, "refs/remotes/" would *not* have been correct). If we take that "plumbing knows much more about Porcelain convention" shift-of-paradigm all the way, refs/remotes/ would contain what are copied from refs/heads/ elsewhere, so checking would have been correct. If you are saying that we are not prepared to take the change that far (which I tend to agree with, as I like to keep the door open for people to do things that at the first sight seem insane but later turns out to be useful in workflows we haven't imagined so far), I'd agree that not insisting on commitness under refs/remotes/ is correct. Is that where your "refs/remotes would *not* have been correct" comes from, or did I miss something more fundamental? - 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
