Re: ref name troubles, was Re: [PATCH v2] Introduce %<branch> as shortcut to the tracked branch
- From
Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
- Date
- Mar 20, 2009, 11:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20090320111238.GZ8940@machine.or.cz>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0903201029290.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
Hi!
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:30:29AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > I think you are right. It is just "git branch" and perhaps "git > > update-ref" are too loose in enforcing what can be created. > > "git branch" I agree with, but not "git update-ref". As plumbing, the > latter should be much more allowing, feeding rope aplenty (but also > allowing cool tricks we do not think about yet).
We shouldn't allow creating insane ref names even with update-ref. That way porcelains cannot rely on update-ref to sanity check the user's crap. At most, maybe you might want to bypass this check with some force switch, though I really can't quite imagine why.
-- Petr "Pasky" Baudis The average, healthy, well-adjusted adult gets up at seven-thirty in the morning feeling just terrible. -- Jean Kerr