From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:57:13 GMT
Subject: Re: ref name troubles, was Re: [PATCH v2] Introduce %<branch> as shortcut to the tracked branch
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0903201255230.6865@intel-tinevez-2-302>
In-Reply-To: <20090320115043.GB8940@machine.or.cz>

Hi,

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Petr Baudis wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:46:19PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> They can rename the ref as the first step of a cleanup, can't they?

Well, of course, we can make life hard on everybody.  That is quite 
possible.

But then, we can be nice, and at the same time fix the problem _properly_.

IMHO a _warning_ should be the best thing.

But all this does not solve _my_ problem: I'd like something as easy to 
write as %next, but as unlikely to be used in existing refs as @{..}.

Ciao,
Dscho