Re: check-ref-format question

> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Michael J Gruber
> <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>> Geoff Russell venit, vidit, dixit 13.05.2009 02:09:
>>> 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.)
> 
> Sorry, my mistake I was running in 2 windows on 2 machine and got
> confused. Ignore
> line 3 in my example.
> 
>>
>> B) "master" certainly looks like a valid refname, the doc seems to imply
>> that it should pass the check.
> 
> $ git --version
> git version 1.6.2.3
> $ git check-ref-format xxxx && echo OK
> $ git check-ref-format master && echo OK
> $ git check-ref-format master/xxxx && echo OK
> OK
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> Geoff.

> 
> 
>>
>> 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
>>