Hi,

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Mark Levedahl wrote:

quoted text
> On Jan 11, 2008 7:03 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > IIUC your patch only replaces the term "origin" by something 
> > user-specifiable.  I fail to see the use of it; care to explain what 
> > workflow is easier with your patches than without?
> 
> Consider a project with several servers, each of which is *supposed* is 
> host the same project but due to lags in mirroring across airgaps, etc., 
> are never quite in sync. Now, we get on a teleconference and discuss 
> issues, find differences, and everyone reports that "origin" has x, but 
> in fact "origin" means different servers to almost everyone. Also 
> consider that only a small subset of the group really understands git, 
> most just follow cook-book recipes to get their work done and don't 
> understand what is going on.

Okay, I now understand your intention much better than before.

quoted text
> This is my problem: "origin" is an abstraction that hides the different 
> server names in use and makes communication difficult, having everyone 
> use nicknames related to their particular upstream server reduces the 
> confusion.

Unfortunately, I think this will just lead to even more confusion.  
Because those people following recipes without thinking will now use a 
name that does not even say the role, let alone the server.

IOW I think that your patch worsens the situation you describe.

IMHO you should optimise the communication by agreeing on one origin, 
or alternatively not talk about a server at all (which is made easy by the 
global uniqueness of commit names; just say "my tip is ac9b7192").

Ciao,
Dscho

-
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