Re: "git symbolic-ref" doesn't do a very good job

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 2, 2022, 00:57 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqilnbjwcl.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <Yuhz0VAX77qv4P5Z@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 11:54:36AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > +test_expect_success 'symbolic-ref allows top-level target for non-HEAD' '
>> > +	git symbolic-ref refs/heads/top-level FETCH_HEAD &&
>> > +	git update-ref FETCH_HEAD HEAD &&
>> > +	test_cmp_rev top-level HEAD
>> > +'
>> >  test_done
>> 
>> Strange, but OK.
>
> I'd be OK to drop this if you hate it too much, btw. Mostly I wanted to
> make sure that the various iterations behaved as I expected. But there
> is a test in t3200 (the one Linus found earlier) that incidentally does
> check that something like this works.

Oh, no, I do not hate it (or like it) at all.

The "strange" was mostly referring to the order of the symbolic thing that refers to another thing that is being pointed at, which looked backwards, i.e. "git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/main" is what we usually expect (i.e. "we use this short name HEAD to refer to the longer refs/heads/main ref"), but after staring the one in the test "git symbolic-ref refs/heads/top-level FETCH_HEAD" too long, your eyes trick your brain into thinking we use the short name FETCH_HEAD to refer to the top-level branch, which is the other way around.

We've been allowing the one-level thing and I think the discussion has established that we need to keep it supported. There is nothing to hate or like about it X-<.

Thanks.