Re: [PATCH] check-ref-format: require a repository for --branch

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Oct 17, 2017, 02:42 UTC
Message-ID: <20171017024203.6hqzy2paed6fyvym@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbml6r2js.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:22:31AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> > I like the state this puts us in, but there's one catch: we're
> > completely changing the meaning of "check-ref-format --branch", aren't
> > we?
> >
> > It is going from "this is how you resolve @{-1}" to "this is how you
> > check the validity of a potential branch name". Do we need to pick a
> > different name, and/or have a deprecation period?
> 
> That was not my intention.  When used in a repository, it behaves
> exactly the same as before, including @{-1} resolution part.  And by
> using strbuf_check_branch_ref(), it has always been checking the
> validity of a potential branch name, even though it wasn't
> advertised as such.  The documentation needs to be updated, I would
> think.
> 
> When used outside a repository, @{-1} would not have worked anyway,
> and @{-1} continues not to work, but the part that checks the
> validity should continue to work.
> 
> At least that is what I wanted to happen in the patch.

Ah, OK, I did not read carefully enough then. I think that would be OK, and probably close to what Jonathan was asking for.

It leaves unresolved the fact that the resolving feature does not belong in check-ref-format in the first place, but we can just accept that as a historical wart.

I don't think there is any need to prepare it upon my 4d03f955, though. I'd think it could simply replace it.

-Peff