On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 09:27:03AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:27:50PM +0800, shejialuo wrote: > > diff --git a/refs/packed-backend.c b/refs/packed-backend.c > > index 8140a31d07..09eb3886c3 100644 > > --- a/refs/packed-backend.c > > +++ b/refs/packed-backend.c > > @@ -694,7 +694,7 @@ static struct snapshot *create_snapshot(struct packed_ref_store *refs) > > > > tmp = xmemdupz(snapshot->buf, eol - snapshot->buf); > > > > - if (!skip_prefix(tmp, "# pack-refs with:", (const char **)&p)) > > + if (!skip_prefix(tmp, "# pack-refs with: ", (const char **)&p)) > > die_invalid_line(refs->path, > > snapshot->buf, > > snapshot->eof - snapshot->buf); > > I know that Junio pointed out that we should check for a trailing space > after the colon. But do we really feel comfortable to tighten the check > like this now? If there was any broken writer of the format that does > not include the whitespace we'd now be unable to parse their output. > > I scanned through a couple of third-party clients: > > - libgit2 is fine and always writes the space. It also expects the > whitespace to exist. > > - JGit does not expect the header to have a trailing space, but > expects the "peeled" capability to have a leading space, which is > mostly equivalent because that capability is typically the first one > we write. It always writes the space. > > - gitoxide expects the space to exist and writes it. > > - go-git doesn't even seem to care about the header? Dunno, maybe I > was just not able to locate the relevant code. I have searched the code. The go-git implement "git pack-refs" in `PackRefs`. go-git never writes header for "packed-refs" file. Thanks for this wonderful suggestion. > > So yes, we should be fine, and the fact that other implementations > expect the space to exist indicates that being more thorough here is a > good thing. It might be a good idea though to split out this change into > a separate commit and then provide more reasoning _why_ it is fine, > including the above info about alternate implementations. > Yes, I agree that we should split out this change. Let me do this. > Patrick
