Fetching a newly created branch via bzr-git

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 09:28:11AM -0400, Gordon Tyler wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:15:11AM -0400, Gordon Tyler wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Btw, what is that "(default)" branch that "bzr branches" shows as
> > > > > being current after the initial git-import?  There's no such branch
> > in
> > > > > the repo, and .bzr/branches/ directory doesn't have a subdirectory
> > for
> > > > > it.  Wouldn't it be better if the default were "master"?
> > > > The (default) branch is what corresponds to HEAD in git. We can't
> > > > simply name that branch "master" since that would conflict with the
> > > > actual master branch, which can be different from HEAD.
> > > As I understand it,  HEAD in a git repo is the ref that points to the
> > >  "current" or default branch. So, theoretically, it should be pointing to
> > > an existing ref (branch). So why is it created or listed as a separate
> > > branch?
> > HEAD in a git repo is just a ref. It is possible for refs to point at
> > other refs (a "symbolic" ref). HEAD is usually a symbolic ref, but
> > this isn't necessarily the case. It can also just point at an
> > arbitrary revision.
> I just checked the HEAD ref in the gawk repo and it's a symref which points
> to master. To my mind, that means that when that repo is imported, the
> default bzr branch should be master.
Sure, but we can't simply import the HEAD branch to master.  Ideally
symbolic refs would be imported as branch references in bzr, but
bzr-git doesn't support that. Patches to that extend welcome. :)

Cheers,

Jelmer