Re: [PATCH 1/2] sha1_name: fix error message for @{u}

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: May 21, 2013, 19:19 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0m7VBz3wDGUACJAfp33M1GYqKCeMCkQwrgA7kqRMp_rtQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0nEXKXxercc1mNjyK-QX0pOBeKWAxPZtSPvN_h1eniO5g@mail.gmail.com>

Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> So did you or did you not audit the codepath?
>
> No; I was explaining why I didn't in the first place.  Going through it now.

So, this is what I have:

interpret_branch_name -> interpret_branch_name (recursion)
                      -> get_sha1_basic -> get_sha1 [context] (end-user data)
                      -> substitute_branch_name -> dwim (end-user data)
		      -> strbuf_branchname (callers pass a branch name; no @{u})
		      -> revision.c:add_pending_object [with_mode] (end-user data)

[die_]verify_filename -> builtin/rev-parse.c (end-user)
		      -> builtin/reset.c (end-user)
		      -> builtin/grep.c:cmd_grep (end-user)
		      -> revision.c:setup_revisions (end-user data)

We used to die in die_verify_filename() earlier, but we die in interpret_branch_name() after the patch. Do we have to dig deeper?