On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxx> writes: > > >> "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. > > That's all nice and clean in theory, but it was more or less the same > reasoning as what was behind the tightening not to allow anything but > refs/heads pointed by HEAD, but you know what fell out of it. "Insane" > and "crap" are in the eye of the beholder. I think there's no possible use to being able to use update-ref to create a ref that rev-parse can't be made to read. I think people will want to do all sorts of things that are insane (I'd personally like some refs with the basename "..."), but they're only likely to do insane things that happen to work, rather than insane things that aren't prevented but still don't work. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* -- 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
