On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 09:32:16AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> Git 3.0 boundary might be a good time to tighten interoperability > >> rules such that we won't accept anything we wouldn't have written > >> ourselves (not limited to loose ref format, but this applies to > >> anything on-disk or on-wire), but we'd need enough preparation if we > >> want to be able to do so in the future. > > > > I quite like this idea. > > I wouldn't say that I wrote it as a devil's advocate comment, but I > was hoping that somebody quote Postel in response, as the above > advocates a directly opposite position, which I wouldn't usually > take. For context, this is the quote you probably refer to: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others". In any case, I still think it is sensible to at least warn about refs like this. It is unexpected to me and may indicate real issues in the understanding of others that end up writing to the refdb. If there are implementations of Git out there that intentionally use our lax parsing to e.g. stuff additional metadata into refs, then we need to tell them that this is not okay. This may have been fine in the past where there was only a single ref backend, but now with multiple ref backends the picture has changed in my opinion. Patrick
