Re: Expected Behavior?

> 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>'.