On 10/21/08, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Alex Riesen" <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 2008/10/21 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> "Leo Razoumov" <slonik.az@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> Even though the old behavior is "long established", it introduces > >>> unnecessary ambiguity. If I have two repos > >>> ... > >> > >> Of course. Now you know why people don't name such a pair of repositories > >> like that ;-). > > > > FWIW, I support Leo on that. The "established" behavior is stupid. > > > I am not inclined to respond to such an emotional argument. On the other > hand, it is fair to say that the existing behaviour is established, > because it is backed by a long history, which you can objectively verify. > > If you think about it deeper, you will realize that it is not even clear > if it is "stupid". > > More importantly, the behaviour is consistent with the way how "git fetch" > and "git clone" DWIMs the repository name by suffixing .git when the input > lacks it. And this DWIMmery comes from the expectations that: > > (1) people name their repository project.git; and > > (2) people like using and seeing short names (iow, "clone > git://$somewhere/project" is preferred over "clone > git://$somewhere/project.git"); > > If a repository whose real location is git://$somewhere/project.git is > cloned/fetched as git://$somewhere/project by people, recording the merge > source using the shorter name used by people to fetch from it is more > consistent. The patch breaks this consistency [*1*]. > > What is clear is that you would confuse yourself if you have two > repositories A and A.git next to each other, and that is primarily because > it breaks the above expectation. > > git core-level rarely imposes such policies, but what Porcelains do is a > different matter. > > Hence the suggestion: don't do it. > > [Footnote] > > *1* It would be a different matter if the patch at the same time removed > the fetch/clone DWIMmery. At least such a patch would be internally self > consistent. > I think this discussion went in the direction of "correct" versus "convent". I, personally, will choose correct over convenient any time. Different people use git for different projects and their expectations differ in this regard. In my case after I do "git clone Foo.git" I get "Foo" repo side-by-side with "Foo.git" and the ambiguity becomes apparent. Regarding your footnote *1*. I agree with your suggestions and I can improve the patch in the following way: (1) Fetch/clone messages/comments will refer to the source/destination repos by their complete names without stripping off any parts (2) Searching for a source repo, clone/fetch will first try an exact match and if it fails it will remove/add ".git" suffix and -- 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
