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, 11:46 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0903201245140.6865@intel-tinevez-2-302>
In-Reply-To: <20090320111238.GZ8940@machine.or.cz>

Hi,

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Petr Baudis wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:30:29AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > 
> > > 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).
> 
> We shouldn't allow creating insane ref names even with update-ref. That
> way porcelains cannot rely on update-ref to sanity check the user's
> crap. At most, maybe you might want to bypass this check with some force
> switch, though I really can't quite imagine why.

You really cannot imagine? You, the author of filter-branch? People _do_ have fscked-up repositories, but they get really angry when they cannot use rebase or filter-branch on them.

Ciao, Dscho