On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 02:49:12AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > 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). That feels sensible. The series needs another thorough review and an Ack by somebody before Junio wants to merge it, but until now I'm not aware of any objections, yeah. So it should hopefully land soonish. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
