On 13/09/2024 18:49, Junio C Hamano wrote:
phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Thanks for the patch, I'll re-roll based on that. I wonder if we
really want to support "@{-N}" when setting remote tracking branches
though - should we be using INTERPRET_BRANCH_REMOTE instead when
calling strbuf_branchname()?
Perhaps. Users try to use "-" in surprising places, though ;-)
strbuf_check_branch_ref() already rejects "-".
INTERPRET_BRANCH_REMOTE supports @{upstream} which might be useful but
then we will need to check it refers to the correct remote and expand it
when setting the fetch refspec so a boolean function to check if a name
is acceptable is insufficient. Given that "git remote set-branches" has
only ever supported "real" branch names and patterns on the command line
and no-one has complained I wonder if we're better off doing something like
if (strbuf_check_branch_ref(&buf, branch_name) ||
strcmp(buf.buf + 11, branch_name))
error(_("invalid branch name '%s'", branch_name));
where the "buf.buf + 11" skips "refs/heads/"
Best Wishes
Phillip
