Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Fix a regression in my 9081a421a6d (checkout: fix "branch info" memory > leaks, 2021-11-16) where I'd assumed that the old_branch_info.path > would have to start with refs/heads/*, but as has been reported[1] > that's not the case. > > As a test case[2] to reproduce this shows the second "git checkout" > here runs into the BUG() in the pre-image. The test being added is > amended from[2] and will pass both with this change, and before > 9081a421a6. I.e. our behavior now is again the same as before that > commit. > +test_expect_success REFFILES 'checkout a branch without refs/heads/* prefix' ' > + git clone --no-tags . repo-odd-prefix && > + ( > + cd repo-odd-prefix && > + > + cp .git/refs/remotes/origin/HEAD .git/refs/heads/a-branch && I am not sure if this is a sensible test case to begin with. It sets up recursive symbolic ref in this way: HEAD points at refs/heads/a-branch refs/heads/a-branch points at refs/remotes/origin/HEAD refs/remotes/origin/HEAD points at refs/remotes/origin/branch1 The checked out branch (i.e. what HEAD points at) is nominally a local branch, but it totally violates the spirit of the safety valve that says "HEAD" MUST point at a local branch or otherwise it is detached. Creating a commit while "a-branch" is checked out would not affect *ANY* local branch state and instead makes an update to the remote tracking branch that does not reflect *any* past states at the remote repository. Even worse, a "git fetch" that updates the remote tracking branches will make the HEAD, the index and the working tree into an inconsistent state. Simply put, I think the BUG() is catching a case where we should have been diagnosing as a broken repository. So from my point of view, BUG() is indeed inappropriate because what the conditional statement noticed was a broken repository, and not a programming bug. What we should never do is to promise this "only kosher in letter but not in spirit" violation of "HEAD must point at a local branch" rule will be supported. So, unless I hear more convincing arguments (and Todd's example or anything similar that makes "git commit" from that state update a ref outside local branches is *not*), I am hesitant to call the new behaviour and 9081a421a6d a regression. What did the code before that BUG() do when faced with this nonsense configuration? If forbidding outright broke a sensible workflow that happened to have been "working", I am OK to demote it to warning() and restore the previous behaviour temporarily, whatever it was (I think it was just old_branch_info.name was left unset because we were not on local branch, but I don't know if the missing .name was making any irrecoverable damage). But the longer term direction should be that we treat the "update HEAD ends up updating some ref outside refs/heads/" a longstanding bug that needs to be fixed. Thanks.
