On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Stephen Kelly <steveire@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Ok, if you can't see in the code why a branch called HEAD might >>> corrupt the remote and I can't demonstrate it with a testcase, maybe >>> it's not an issue anymore, I don't know. >> >> No, it's still an issue, and I believe I pin-pointed it in my first >> mail. You can try out the patch I sent, and see if that helps in your >> case. If it does, I think it'd make sense to do something (preferably >> a bit more robust) with it. > > Yes, I think your patch should be applied regardless, as that solves > _one_ issue. OK, I'll send out an RFC with some discussion on the alternatives a bit later. > But there are other issues. I guess the root of the problem(s) is that there's no way to disambiguate 'HEAD'. One solution could be to say that 'HEAD' never is ambiguous, but it feels a little inconsistent... Thoughts, anyone? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html