Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> Hmph, is the above sufficient? I added a case that mimics Stefano's
>>> original regression report (which is handled) and another that uses
>>> doubled "@" for the same purpose of introducing a "funny" hierarchy,
>>> and it appears that "checkout -b" chokes on it.
>>
>> This fixes it:
>>
>> --- a/sha1_name.c
>> +++ b/sha1_name.c
>> @@ -1014,6 +1014,8 @@ static int interpret_empty_at(const char *name,
>> int namelen, int len, struct str
>>
>> /* make sure it's a single @, or @@{.*}, not @foo */
>> next = strchr(name + len + 1, '@');
>> + if (next && next[1] != '{')
>> + return -1;
>> if (!next)
>> next = name + namelen;
>> if (next != name + 1)
>
> I think this should be sufficient for all cases, as the sequence
> "@{" cannot be a part of valid reference names.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I see v6 was posted yesterday after this message, but it does not
> seem to have this fix, nor the additional test case I gave you in
> the message upthread. Sent a wrong version of patch by mistake?
Ping?
I could squash the fixup at the tip of on fc/at-head in if you want
me to, but v6 seems to be a mistake to me.
--
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