Hi! On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:30:29AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > I think you are right. It is just "git branch" and perhaps "git > > update-ref" are too loose in enforcing what can be created. > > "git branch" I agree with, but not "git update-ref". As plumbing, the > latter should be much more allowing, feeding rope aplenty (but also > allowing cool tricks we do not think about yet). We shouldn't allow creating insane ref names even with update-ref. That way porcelains cannot rely on update-ref to sanity check the user's crap. At most, maybe you might want to bypass this check with some force switch, though I really can't quite imagine why. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis The average, healthy, well-adjusted adult gets up at seven-thirty in the morning feeling just terrible. -- Jean Kerr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
