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

>> And in that spirit, I think the patch you replied with aims to go in
>> the right direction, by providing the core functionality when in a
>> repository while avoiding breaking such a script outside of one
>> (though I do not understand it fully yet).
>
> Given that, is it safe for me to ignore this earlier one
>
>> For what it's worth, I don't agree with this repurposing of
>> "check-ref-format --branch" at all.
>
> as reacting to the patch without reading what it does?

>>>                                        (e.g. a wrapper to "git
>>> clone" that wants to verify the name it is going to give to the "-b"
>>> option), and a check desired in such a context is different from
>>> (and is stricter than) feeding refs/heads/$name to the same command
>>> without the "--branch" option.
>>
>> Can you say more about this example?  E.g. why is this hypothetical
>> wrapper unable to rely on "git clone -b"'s own error handling?
>
> If I have to guess what you meant, perhaps the Porcelain wanted to
> diagnose bad parameter that would be rejected _before_ letting clone
> spend cycles and possibly network bandwidth?
>
> But this was my way of rephrasing an earlier example you used while
> objecting to Peff's change