Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> With the `--branch` option, the command takes a name and checks if
> -it can be used as a valid branch name (e.g. when creating a new
> -branch). The rule `git check-ref-format --branch $name` implements
> -may be stricter than what `git check-ref-format refs/heads/$name`
> -says (e.g. a dash may appear at the beginning of a ref component,
> -but it is explicitly forbidden at the beginning of a branch name).
> -When run with `--branch` option in a repository, the input is first
> -expanded for the ``previous branch syntax''
> -`@{-n}`. For example, `@{-1}` is a way to refer the last branch you
> -were on. This option should be used by porcelains to accept this
> -syntax anywhere a branch name is expected, so they can act as if you
> -typed the branch name.
> +it can be used as a valid branch name e.g. when creating a new branch
> +(but be cautious when using the previous checkout syntax; it may refer
> +to a detached HEAD state). The rule `git check-ref-format --branch
> +$name` implements may be stricter than what `git check-ref-format
> +refs/heads/$name` says (e.g. a dash may appear at the beginning of a
> +ref component, but it is explicitly forbidden at the beginning of a
> +branch name). When run with `--branch` option in a repository, the
> +input is first expanded for the ``previous checkout syntax''
> +`@{-n}`. For example, `@{-1}` is a way to refer the last thing that
> +was checked out using "git checkout" operation. This option should be
> +used by porcelains to accept this syntax anywhere a branch name is
> +expected, so they can act as if you typed the branch name. As an
> +exception note that, the ``previous checkout operation'' might result
> +in a commit object name when the N-th last thing checked out was not
> +a branch.
Looks alright.
It was made unnecessarily harder to review because it was marked as
2/2, even though this no longer applies on top of the copy of 1/2
that was merged some time ago. I needed to find that it was rebased
on top of 'master'; it wouldn't have been necessary if this was sent
as a single patch (with comment saying that this used to be 2/2
whose first one already graduated to 'master' under the three-dash
line).
Also re-wrapping the lines only to squeeze in "but be cautious..."
and replace s/branch/checkout/ in a few places did not help to make
it easy to spot what's changed.
This part looked a bit strange.
> +it can be used as a valid branch name e.g. when creating a new branch
> +(but be cautious when using the previous checkout syntax; it may refer
> +to a detached HEAD state). The rule `git check-ref-format --branch
I think "e.g. when creating a new branch" is a parenthetical remark,
so it should be inside parenthesis. As the last three lines in the
new text (quoted above) already warns that it may not be a branch name,
I am not sure if the "but be cautious" adds much value, though.
