Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 02/17/2015 05:55 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 05:39:27PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>>
>>> There's a bunch of code in refs.c that is there explicitly for reading
>>> loose references that are symlinks. If the link contents literally start
>>> with "refs/", then they are read and treated as a symbolic ref.
>>> Otherwise, the symlink is just followed.
>> ...
> Yes, this makes sense too. But my point was that sticking symlinks to
> random files in your refs hierarchy is pretty questionable even *before*
> the symlink gets broken. If we would warn the user as soon as we saw
> such a thing, then the user's problem would never have advanced as far
> as it did. Do you think that emitting warnings on *intact* symlinks is
> too draconian?
Do you mean that we would end up reading refs/heads/hold if the user
did this:
git rev-parse --verify HEAD -- >precious
ln -s ../../../precious .git/refs/heads/hold
because that symbolic link does not begin with "refs/", and is an
accident waiting to happen so we should forbid it in the longer
term and warning when we see it would be the first step?
--
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