Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The problems with nesting is those pesky remotes with only single >> tracked branch to them; they are I think quote common... well, unless >> you do one-shot pull, directly into local branch. > > My idea with this would be to only create a group if it has at least > N > 1 (probably N=2) entries. A bit of complication is that you would have then series of 'uncategorized' (not in any subsection) entries / remote-tracking branches. >> All that said, splitting 'remotes' section is difficult; using first >> dirname as section is probably easiest, and good enough in most cases. >> That is why I think this part should be put into separate series, to >> not hinder rest of patches. > > Yes, I will resend the 'remote_heads' feature as a new (reduced) > patchset, then add (separate patchset) grouping for ref lists, and > then add (yet another patchset) detached head. That is I think a good idea. P.S. I think that sending this patch series for review, even if it was not perfect was a very good idea... well, perhaps some patches could be marked as RFC. It is hard work to prepare good patches, then wait for review, then wait a bit that there is no further review, working on the patches, resend and wait for review, or for Ack and merge-in... Keep up good work. -- Jakub Narebski Poland -- 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
