On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 12:02:45PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > One thing that I didn't catch in my initial review that I am seeing now > is the ".alternate" marker. Why did you choose this? I was thinking that > ".have" would make more sense since it's consistent with what's shown in > the ref advertisement, but I think that actually ".alternate" is a > _better_ choice: the two really do refer to different things.
Yeah, I had called these ".have" originally, but decided that was too tied up with the current users, and not with the concept. I think keeping the leading "." is worthwhile as that's an invalid refname. I also thought about an empty string, but it's probably more informative to show _something_. After all, the user would not see these unless they specifically asked for them _and_ used something like --source, so presumably it's a useful piece of information at that point (I don't know of any other way to show these names except for --source). I suppose one other option would be to name them after the oid itself. So with --source you'd find out that 1234abcd came from 1234abcd (duh), but also that its children came from 1234abcd. Maybe that has value. I dunno. It would be easy to change, but I'd also be OK punting until somebody comes up with a compelling use case. -Peff
