Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > On 02/22/2015 07:32 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> ... Both borrow the objects >> in order to reduce the network cost, and the difference is that one >> keeps borrowing while the other one limits the borrowing to strictly >> the initial phase. The two words, "borrow" and "reference", would >> not convey that key distinction. ... and that is why I >> call it a cop-out. >> ... >> We are all on the same page. We know the cop-out is suboptimal, we >> understand why the cop-out is better than "--borrow", and we cannot >> come up with a better name that contrasts with the existing >> "--reference" to make it clear how the new thing is different. > > I'll take that as an invitation to brainstorm :-) > > --use-objects-from= > --copy-objects-from= > --precopy-objects-from= > --precopy-from= > --donor= > --object-donor= > --steal-from= > --steal-objects-from= > > Of these, I think I like "--object-donor" the best.
Donor (somehow the word reminds me of organ harvesting, yuck)? I didn't think of the word 'copy', but that probably captures the essence the best. "reference-to-borrow-and-then-dissociate" is an implementation detail, which, as you say, we do not want the users to view this operation as; copying locally instead of over the network is what the user wants to do. > By the way, once we have stopped thinking about this feature as > "--reference" and then "--dissociate", it becomes obvious that a nice > generalization would be to allow *any* repository (including remote > ones) to serve as the object donor. As I do not think of a workable approach to implement such a mechanism, I'd refrain from being irresponsible and say "Yeah, that's a neat idea", which would make me sound like clueless "me too, why doesn't Git do that?" crowd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
