Re: [PATCH 2/3] object-name: don't allow @ as a branch name

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Oct 8, 2024, 06:52 UTC
Message-ID: <20241008065255.GA676291@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <9a64a58b-3d08-44b4-96a5-9031863de4f1@app.fastmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 10:56:36PM +0200, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> > There's a bit of subtlety here which makes the term "invalid" somewhat
> > vague. The refname "refs/heads/HEAD" is allowed by plumbing, as we try
> > to maintain backwards compatibility there. So the current prohibition is
> > just within the porcelain tools: we won't allow "git branch HEAD"
> > because it's an easy mistake to make, even though you could still create
> > it with "git update-ref".
> 
> Got it.  Creating this one (or something like `refs/heads/HEAD` for that
> matter) is allowed by the plumbing tools.  But the porcelain ones are
> blocked.
> 
> Also the plumbing query `git check-ref-format --branch @` now returns
> false.  Since it has to harmonize with what the branch creation
> porcelain can do.

Yeah, good point. I was thinking the existing test was purely about the git-branch porcelain, but "check-ref-format --branch" follows the same rules.

Show 5 quoted lines

> > And naturally we'd want the same rules for "refs/heads/@". I think it
> > might be worth adding "...in plumbing" to the end of the subject, and/or
> > calling out this distinction in the text.
> 
> Did you mean something like “disallow in porcelain”?

Oops, yes, I had it backwards. Good catch.

-Peff