Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> 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. > > Well, the user is doing odd things with git, but we should reserve BUG() > for things that aren't rechable. Any time a user is able to arrange our > tooling in such a way as to call BUG() is a ... bug. Yes, I concur. >> 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. > > The behavior with my patch here is exactly the same as before. I.e. it > was rather straightforward, the xstrdup() is new, but before we'd just > take the un-skipped string that didn't start with refs/heads/ as-is. OK, that might have done a wrong thing (instead of dying) for a strange settings like that, but the change was never about tightening and detecting such a strangeness but only about plugging leaks, so reverting that narrow part of the patch is the right thing to do. > I agree that it's better to look at this more deeply, but given the rc2 > being out, and this surely being something we want in the final I'd > think we'd want to keep this patch as-is. Yes, except for the update in the test. I do not think we want to promise what should happen to the _values_ of these refs after the operation at all. If it only says "checkout should not exit with non-zero status", I would be OK. Promising anything more than that, I do not think it is a good idea. For now, I plan to do the "revert the check-and-BUG and nothing else" change. Thanks.
