Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 12:09 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> You said that "checkout" does not do a necessary check that is done >> in "branch", so presumably "branch" already has a code to do so that >> is not called by the current "checkout", right? Then you would add >> a new caller in "checkout" to trigger the same check that is already >> done in "branch", but the code "branch" uses _might_ be too specific >> to the kind of data the current implementation of "branch" uses and >> it _may_ not be easy to call it directly from "checkout" (I didn't >> check if that is the case). If so, then the check implemented in >> the current "branch" may need to be refactored before it can easily >> be called from the new caller you would be adding to "checkout". >> >> > Thanks. Now I get it. What about doing that check in > branch.c::create_branch or branch.c::validate_new_branchname? I guess > creating a branch named HEAD isn't that good an idea in any case. Doing > the check there might prevent a similar situation in future, I guess. > Further "branch" and "checkout" do call branch.c::create_branch which > in turn calls branch.c::validate_new_branchname. The above analysis sounds sensible, so it appears that you already found a function that is shared in the two codepaths, and have a good plan to make them consistent? I was sweeping my mailbox to collect loose ends that haven't been tied down, and noticed that this topic does not seem to reach a conclusion. Do we want to reboot the effort? Or should we just throw it in the #leftoverbits bin for now? Thanks.
