On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 08:35:52AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > 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. Correct, I don't think Junio picked it up. It needed a re-roll anyway, so I'd plan to do it on top of your patches, assuming they are on track to get merged (and it sounds like there are no real objections). -Peff
