From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:05:50 GMT
Subject: Re: remote branches, and branch names in general
Message-ID: <20090303090550.GF3627@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <200903030958.56150.markus.heidelberg@web.de>

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:58:55AM +0100, Markus Heidelberg wrote:

> > Yes. I don't know if they are documented anywhere, but the complete
> > lookup order is:
> > 
> >   $ git grep -h -A8 ref_rev_parse_rules refs.c
> >   const char *ref_rev_parse_rules[] = {
> >           "%.*s",
> >           "refs/%.*s",
> >           "refs/tags/%.*s",
> >           "refs/heads/%.*s",
> >           "refs/remotes/%.*s",
> >           "refs/remotes/%.*s/HEAD",
> >           NULL
> >   };
> 
> Documented in git-rev-parse -> specifying revisions.

Oh, indeed. Thanks for pointing it out.

Though I think this may be part of what people mean when they say git
documentation sucks. I had no idea where to look for such a thing, and
it turns out it is in the manpage for a plumbing command that in theory
I should never have to use.

-Peff