Re: [BUG] branch renamed to 'HEAD'

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Feb 28, 2017, 00:53 UTC
Message-ID: <20170228005302.k6fyfinaxyl3ti76@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqzih7kvbz.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:33:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> A flag to affect the behaviour (as opposed to &flag as a secondary
> return value, like Peff's patch does) can be made to work.  Perhaps
> a flag that says "keep the input as is if the result is not a local
> branch name" would pass an input "@" intact and that may be
> sufficient to allow "git branch -m @" to rename the current branch
> to "@" (I do not think it is a sensible rename, though ;-).  But
> probably some callers need to keep the original input and compare
> with the result to see if we expanded anything if we go that route.
> At that point, I am not sure if there are much differences in the
> ease of use between the two approaches.

I just went into more detail in my reply to Jacob, but I do think this is a workable approach (and fortunately we seem to have banned bare "@" as a name, along with anything containing "@{}", so I think we would end up rejecting these nonsense names).

I'll see if I can work up a patch. We'll still need to pass the flag around through the various functions, but at least it will be a flag and not a confusing negated out-parameter.

-Peff