From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 20:28:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/35] ls-refs: introduce ls-refs server command
Message-ID: <20180305202813.GA5953@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180305182155.GB72475@google.com>

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:21:55AM -0800, Brandon Williams wrote:

> > Hmm, so this would accept stuff like "refs/heads/*/foo" but quietly
> > ignore the "/foo" part.
> 
> Yeah that's true...this should probably not do that.  Since
> "refs/heads/*/foo" violates what the spec is, really this should error
> out as an invalid pattern.

Yeah, that would be better, I think.

> > It also accepts "refs/h*" to get "refs/heads" and "refs/hello".  I think
> > it's worth going for the most-restrictive thing to start with, since
> > that enables a lot more server operations without worrying about
> > breaking compatibility.
> 
> And just to clarify what do you see as being the most-restrictive case
> of patterns that would should use?

I mean only accepting "*" at a "/" boundary (or just allowing a trailing
slash to imply recursion, like "refs/heads/", or even just always
assuming recursion to allow "refs/heads").

-Peff