On 10/07/2017 06:36 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: > On 10/06/2017 07:16 PM, Jeff King wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 07:09:10PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: >> >>> I do have one twinge of uneasiness at a deeper level, that I haven't had >>> time to check... >>> >>> Does this patch make it easier to *set* HEAD to an unborn branch that >>> d/f conflicts with an existing reference? If so, that might be a >>> slightly worse UI for users. I'd rather learn about such a problem when >>> setting HEAD (when I am thinking about the new branch name and am in the >>> frame of mind to solve the problem) rather than later, when I try to >>> commit to the new branch. >> >> Good question. The answer is no, it's allowed both before and after my >> patch. At least via git-symbolic-ref. >> >> I agree it would be nice to know earlier for such a case. For >> symbolic-ref, we probably should allow it, because it's plumbing that >> may be used for tricky things. For things like "checkout -b", you'd >> generally get a timely warning as we try to create the ref. >> >> The odd man out is "checkout --orphan", which leaves the branch unborn. >> It might be nice if it did a manual check that the ref is available (and >> also that it's syntactically acceptable, though I think we may do that >> already). >> >> But all of that is orthogonal to this fix, I think. > > Thanks for checking. Yes, I totally agree that this is orthogonal. I also just checked but there don't seem to be any docstrings that need updating. Reviewed-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> (both patches in this series). Michael
