Jacob Keller <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com> writes: > Instead, lets add support for a new refs/tracking/* hierarchy which is > laid out in such a way to avoid this inconsistency. All refs in > "refs/tracking/<remote>/*" will include the complete ref, such that > dropping the "tracking/<remote>" part will give the exact ref name as it > is found in the upstream. Thus, we can track any ref here by simply > fetching it into refs/tracking/<remote>/*.
I do think this overall is a good goal to aim for wrt "tracking", i.e. keeping a pristine copy of what we observed from the outside world. In addition to what you listed as "undecided" below, however, I expect that this will highlight a lot of trouble in "working together", i.e. reconciling the differences of various world views and moving the project forward, in two orthogonal axes: - Things pointed at by some refs (e.g. notes/, but I think the ".gitmodules equivalent that is not tied to any particular commit in the superproject" Jonathan Nieder and friends advocate falls into the same category) do not correspond to the working tree contents, and merging their contents will always pose challenge when we need to prepare for conflict resolution. - Things pointed at by some other refs (e.g. tags/) do not make sense to be merged. You may locally call a commit with a tag "wip", while your friends may use the same "wip" tag to point at a different one. Both are valid, and more importantly, there is no point even trying to reconcile what the "wip" tag means in the project globally. For the former, I expect that merging these non-working tree contents will all have to require some specific tool that is tailored for the meaning each hierarchy has, just like "git notes merge" gives a solution that is very specific to the notes refs (I do not know how well "notes merge" works in practice, though). For the latter, having a separate tracking hierarchy is a strict improvement from "tracking" point of view, but I think "working together" also needs a well designed set of new look-up rules, and a new convention. For example, some tags may not want to be shared (e.g. "wip" example above) even though they should be easy to access by those who already have them (e.g. "git log ..wip" should work without having to say "git log ..refs/local-tags/wip", even if we decide to implement the "some tags may not want to be shared" segregation by introducing a new hierarchy). And also a shared tag that is copied to "refs/tracking/origin/tags/v1.0" would need a way better than "git log tracking/origin/tags/v1.0" for this mechanism to be useful in everyday workflow. Thanks.
