From: Jonathan Nieder Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:45:15 GMT Subject: Re: check-ref-format: include refs/ in the argument or to strip it? Message-ID: <20140822184515.GL20185@google.com> In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano wrote: > implication of which is that the 'at least one slash' > rule was to expect things are 'refs/' so there will be at > least one. Even back then, that alone had at least one > slash (e.g. heads/master), but the intention was *never* that we > would forbid that does not have a slash by feeding > part alone to check-ref-format, i.e. things like > "refs/stash" were designed to be allowed. Now I'm more confused. Until 5f7b202a (2008-01-01), there was a comment if (level < 2) return -2; /* at least of form "heads/blah" */ and that behavior has been preserved since the beginning. Why do most old callers pass a string that doesn't start with refs/ (e.g., see the callers in 03feddd6, 2005-10-13)? Has the intent been to relax the requirement since then? Jonathan