On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 02:22:20AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 06:39:52AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 06:16:18AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 02:13:39PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 10:17:42AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > [snip] > > > > And arguably is_pseudoref_syntax() should be taking into account the > > > > "_HEAD" restriction and special names anyway. It is a bit weird that > > > > even if we tighten up the refname checking to use is_pseudoref_syntax(), > > > > you'd still be able to "git update-ref FOO" but then not see it as a > > > > root ref! > > > > > > True, as well. I'm less comfortable with doing that change in this > > > series though as it does impose a major restriction that did not exist > > > previously. We probably want some escape hatches so that it would still > > > be possible to modify those refs when really required, for example to > > > delete such broken refs. > > > > > > I would thus like to defer this to a follow up patch series, if you > > > don't mind. > > > > Arguably, we don't need `is_pseudoref_syntax()` (which is being renamed > > to `is_root_ref_syntax()`) at all anymore after this series lands > > because it can be neatly rolled into `is_root_ref()`. The only caller, > > `is_current_worktree_ref()`, should really call `is_roof_ref()` and not > > `is_root_ref_syntax()`. > > Yeah, and I'd expect that the more-strict check_refname_format() that I > proposed elsewhere would be in the same boat. The only reason I used the > "_syntax()" variant is that it was obviously wrong to do existence > checks there. Once those are gone, then naturally it should be able to > rely on is_root_ref() itself. This series hasn't been queued/merged yet, right? Do you plan to reroll it? I think that the changes in there are a good complementary addition to the clarifications in my patch series. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
