From: Fredrik Kuivinen <freku045@student.liu.se>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:19:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Expected Behavior?
Message-ID: <20051109081906.GA4960@c165.ib.student.liu.se>
In-Reply-To: <7vmzkenzcx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:50:54PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Fredrik Kuivinen <freku045@student.liu.se> writes:
> 
> >> Oops, I missed that part.  This is unsafe in theory, if you
> >> could overwrite existing file3_master or file3_dev.  Does that
> >> matter in practice?
> >
> > It wont overwrite any existing files. If there is a file named
> > 'file3_master' then the new file will be named 'file3_master_1' and if
> > that file also exists the new file will be named 'file3_master_2', and
> > so on.
> 
> Another thing to watch out is that a branch name could have a
> slash in it.  It might make more sense to just name the heads file3~2
> or file3~3 (with as many ~s repeated to avoid name clashes) like
> Pasky does.
> 

Oups, I haven't thought about that. I kind of like the idea that you
can see the branch name in the file names though. How about replacing
any slashes in the branch names with underscores? So the branch
'foo/bar' will give rise to files with suffixes like '_foo_bar' and
'_foo_bar_<number>'.

- Fredrik