Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] transport.c: introduce core.alternateRefsPrefixes

From: Taylor Blau <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:46:45 -0700

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:41:18AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <[email-masked]> writes:
>
> > Right, I think that is totally fine for the current uses. I guess my
> > question was: do you envision cutting the interface down to only the
> > oids to bite us in the future?
> >
> > I was on the fence during past discussions, but I think I've come over
> > to the idea that the refnames actively confuse things.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> So, I think we probably are better off without names.

Sorry for re-entering the thread a little later. I was travelling
yesterday, and was surprised when I discovered that our "grep | sed" vs.
"sed" discussion had grown so much ;-).

My reading of this is threefold:

  1. There are some cosmetic changes that need to occur in t5410 and
     documentation, which are mentioned above. Those seem self
     explanatory, and I've applied the necessary bits already on my
     local version of this topic.

  2. The core.alternateRefsCommand vs transport.* discussion was
     resolved in [1] as "let's use core.alternateRefsCommand and
     core.alternateRefsPrefixes" for now, and others contributors can
     change this as is needed.

  3. We can apply Peff's patch to remove the refname requirement before
     mine, as well as any relevant changes in my series as have been
     affected by Peff's patch (e.g., documentation mentioning
     '%(refname)', etc).

Does this all sound sane to you (and match your recollection/reading of
the thread)? If so, I'll send v3 hopefully tomorrow.

Sorry for repeating what's already been said in this thread, but I felt
it was important to ensure that we had matching understandings of one
another.

Thanks,
Taylor

[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/[email-masked]/