On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:23:43PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Giving extra garbage to the set of prefixes does not hurt the > correctness, but we didn't add the extra prefix for > branch.<name>.merge before this fix, so not using > expand_ref_prefix() is not breaking anybody who weren't broken > before. So I think it may be OK to support only the full refs at > first. It's just that folks who didn't have full refname as the > value is not helped by our fix. Right. My patch is a strict improvement. I just wasn't sure if we should go further while we are here. > If enough folks complain that they have handcrafted (or prepared by > third-party tools) branch.<name>.merge that is not a full refname, > we could switch to expand_ref_prefix() and as long as the refnames > on the remote side is not ambiguous, things will still work > correctly, but I'd prefer to keep it tight until we actually hear > complaints. OK, that matches my feeling, too. So I think the series as-is should be fine. -Peff
