On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:46:19PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > 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. > > You really cannot imagine? You, the author of filter-branch? People _do_ > have fscked-up repositories, but they get really angry when they cannot > use rebase or filter-branch on them. They can rename the ref as the first step of a cleanup, can't they? -- 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
