From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:50:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Expected Behavior?
Message-ID: <7vmzkenzcx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20051108225320.GB4805@c165.ib.student.liu.se>

Fredrik Kuivinen <freku045@student.liu.se> writes:

>> Oops, I missed that part.  This is unsafe in theory, if you
>> could overwrite existing file3_master or file3_dev.  Does that
>> matter in practice?
>
> It wont overwrite any existing files. If there is a file named
> 'file3_master' then the new file will be named 'file3_master_1' and if
> that file also exists the new file will be named 'file3_master_2', and
> so on.

Another thing to watch out is that a branch name could have a
slash in it.  It might make more sense to just name the heads file3~2
or file3~3 (with as many ~s repeated to avoid name clashes) like
Pasky does.