Re: Creating remote branch called HEAD corrupts remote clones
- From
Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 4, 2011, 12:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <BANLkTinLCirA4XP9AOb9piGo9ucMsmrmkQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <BANLkTinCSotWC-kbPDJc57NZM29hizYKpA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Stephen Kelly <steveire@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Ok, if you can't see in the code why a branch called HEAD might >>> corrupt the remote and I can't demonstrate it with a testcase, maybe >>> it's not an issue anymore, I don't know. >> >> No, it's still an issue, and I believe I pin-pointed it in my first >> mail. You can try out the patch I sent, and see if that helps in your >> case. If it does, I think it'd make sense to do something (preferably >> a bit more robust) with it. > > Yes, I think your patch should be applied regardless, as that solves > _one_ issue.
OK, I'll send out an RFC with some discussion on the alternatives a bit later.
> But there are other issues.
I guess the root of the problem(s) is that there's no way to disambiguate 'HEAD'. One solution could be to say that 'HEAD' never is ambiguous, but it feels a little inconsistent... Thoughts, anyone?