Re: check-ref-format question

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: May 13, 2009, 14:13 UTC
Message-ID: <4A0AD5A2.2090103@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <93c3eada0905121709k73a47bddu60def6b5fbc1b15e@mail.gmail.com>

Geoff Russell venit, vidit, dixit 13.05.2009 02:09:

Show 16 quoted lines

> 1 $ git --version
> git version 1.6.2.3
> 2 $ git check-ref-format xxxx && echo OK
> 3 $ git-check-ref-format --branch xxxx && echo OK
> xxxx
> OK
> 4 $ git check-ref-format --branch xxxx && echo OK
> usage: git check-ref-format refname
> 
> 
> 2 seems wrong,
> I tried 3 after looking at  builtin-check-ref-format.c
> I couldn't find any test cases in the git/t directory
> 
> From the documenation, I expect "git check-ref-format xxx" to return 0 if xxx is
> a valid branch or ref name.  git version 1.6.3 gives the same results.

There are several things going on:

A) In 3 you use a different git than in 1,2,4. You told us the latter is 1.6.2.3, and I'm telling you the former contains v1.6.2.1-310-ga31dca0 (which has the new --branch option). This simply checks whether refs/heads/xxxx is sane. (It also resolves @{-1} and such, which is what makes it useful at all.)

B) "master" certainly looks like a valid refname, the doc seems to imply that it should pass the check.

C) Looking at the code, check-ref-format checks explicitly for the presence of at least 2 levels: foo/bar is good, foo is bad. So, master always had been bad, as well (or bad) as full sha1s!

The code has always behaved like C since its inception but I don't know the rationale behind the 2 level requirement. Daniel, Junio?

Michael