Re: ref name troubles, was Re: [PATCH v2] Introduce %<branch> as shortcut to the tracked branch

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Mar 20, 2009, 09:30 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0903201029290.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vprgc4r6h.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Hi,

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 05:40:29PM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> >
> >> So yea, you can create a branch named "foo@{1}".
> >
> > But you can't actually refer to it:
> >
> >   $ git branch foo@{1}
> >   $ git show foo@{1} --
> >   fatal: bad revision 'foo@{1}'
> >
> > which implies that nobody is actually using it for anything.
> 
> I think you are right.  It is just "git branch" and perhaps "git
> update-ref" are too loose in enforcing what can be created.

"git branch" I agree with, but not "git update-ref". As plumbing, the latter should be much more allowing, feeding rope aplenty (but also allowing cool tricks we do not think about yet).

Ciao, Dscho