Stefan BellerNEEDSWORK:
checkout -b remotes/origin/<branch> should not work, unless force is given (maybe?)
(I just run into that, now I have a remote tracking branch that points at my detached HEAD. Oh well.)
threads / discuss / 45957
checkout -b remotes/origin/<branch> should not work
Subject: checkout -b remotes/origin/<branch> should not work
Stefan Beller
Jeff KingRe: checkout -b remotes/origin/<branch> should not work
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:52:37PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> NEEDSWORK: > > checkout -b remotes/origin/<branch> should not work, unless force is > given (maybe?) > > (I just run into that, now I have a remote tracking branch that points > at my detached HEAD. Oh well.)
To be pedantic, you have a local branch with a funny name that points to your detached HEAD. :)
I think this problem extends beyond "remotes/". The worst is:
git checkout -b HEAD
but there are many confusing variants:
git checkout -b refs/heads/foo git checkout -b tags/v1.0
etc. Those are all perfectly legal names, but almost certainly not what the user intended. I think the plumbing should continue to allow them, but I wouldn't object to some common-sense think-o protections in the "checkout -b" plumbing (especially if it could be disabled for power users).
-Peff
Junio C HamanoRe: checkout -b remotes/origin/<branch> should not work
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 14 quoted lines
> I think this problem extends beyond "remotes/". The worst is: > > git checkout -b HEAD > > but there are many confusing variants: > > git checkout -b refs/heads/foo > git checkout -b tags/v1.0 > > etc. Those are all perfectly legal names, but almost certainly not what > the user intended. I think the plumbing should continue to allow them, > but I wouldn't object to some common-sense think-o protections in the > "checkout -b" plumbing (especially if it could be disabled for power > users).
Yup. I suspect that the last one has uses (for those who may want to build on v1.0 tag it is conceivable that a local branch they use for it is named like so), but I agree that anything that begins with refs/* is not something any sane person would want to use.
sanity.branchname configuration or something that tells "checkout" and "branch" Porcelain commands to barf on an attempt to create such refnames does not sound too bad, and making it on by default may not even be a bad idea. But that leads me to say it may not even need to be a configurable thing (people who DO want funny names can already and still use the plumbing).
In any case, no command after such a change should forbid checking out such a funny-named branch if it already exists. We should complain only on (an attempted) creation.