On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
quoted text
> 
> Personally I'm all for namespace separation. I'm assuming the script has the
> tracker-branch hardcoded anyway, so I don't really understand why it would be
> necessary to keep other refs in a separate directory and, if it *is*
> necessary, why that subdirectory can't be .git/refs/heads/svn.
> 
> Eric mentioned earlier that the tracking-branch can't be committed to (ever),
> so the user convenience for searching other directories should be nearly
> non-existant.

The thing about it being .git/refs/heads/svn/xyzzy is that then you can do

	git checkout svn/xyzzy

and start modifying it. Which is exactly against the point: the thing is 
_not_ a branch and you must _not_ commit to it.

It's much more like a tag: it's a pointer to the last point of an 
svn-import.

So I think it should either _be_ a tag (although Dscho worries about some 
broken porcelain being confused by tags changing) or it should be in a 
namespace all it's own. Not under .git/refs/heads/ at any point, because 
it is _not_ a head of development.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html