Hi,
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Petr Baudis wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:46:19PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > 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?
Well, of course, we can make life hard on everybody. That is quite
possible.
But then, we can be nice, and at the same time fix the problem _properly_.
IMHO a _warning_ should be the best thing.
But all this does not solve _my_ problem: I'd like something as easy to
write as %next, but as unlikely to be used in existing refs as @{..}.
Ciao,
Dscho
--
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
