From: Shawn O. Pearce Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:26:54 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/4] git check-ref-format --print Message-ID: <20091012232653.GQ9261@spearce.org> In-Reply-To: <7veip8e302.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Junio C Hamano wrote: > I understand that you prefer the latter between "there is no tool; the > caller is responsibile to make sure it feeds us canonical representation" > and "there is a tool that makes a slightly malformed string into canonical > form for the callers to use before calling us." And that would be my > preference between these two as well. ... > But now I have spelled this out, I do not see much upside for rejecting, > and more importantly, I think it would be an independent issue. We can > reject or just keep normalizing silently, and a tool to show the > normalized name would be useful and necessary regardless of that. I agree with the last paragraph here, we shouldn't reject, but instead keep the current state but encourage tools to use the new canonical print tool to clean up a name if they want to hang onto the string the user entered and it needs to exactly match for-each-ref sort of output. -- Shawn.