On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:22:31AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I like the state this puts us in, but there's one catch: we're > > completely changing the meaning of "check-ref-format --branch", aren't > > we? > > > > It is going from "this is how you resolve @{-1}" to "this is how you > > check the validity of a potential branch name". Do we need to pick a > > different name, and/or have a deprecation period? > > That was not my intention. When used in a repository, it behaves > exactly the same as before, including @{-1} resolution part. And by > using strbuf_check_branch_ref(), it has always been checking the > validity of a potential branch name, even though it wasn't > advertised as such. The documentation needs to be updated, I would > think. > > When used outside a repository, @{-1} would not have worked anyway, > and @{-1} continues not to work, but the part that checks the > validity should continue to work. > > At least that is what I wanted to happen in the patch. Ah, OK, I did not read carefully enough then. I think that would be OK, and probably close to what Jonathan was asking for. It leaves unresolved the fact that the resolving feature does not belong in check-ref-format in the first place, but we can just accept that as a historical wart. I don't think there is any need to prepare it upon my 4d03f955, though. I'd think it could simply replace it. -Peff