Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Yes, I know that tightening rules retroactively is bad, but this changes
>> the rules for refnames to forbid:
>
> Tightening rules retroactively is not only bad (if sometimes necessary),
> but tightening rules without giving the user a chance to recover is really
> bad.
>
> 'git branch -m' uses check_ref_format() to check the old name.
Because "git branch -d" still allows a malformed funny branch to be
removed with this patch, I would say it is Ok as long as release notes
clearly says what we are tightening the rule for.
It is very probable that some people may have "master@{24}" in their
repositories, but such a branch cannot be accessed with or without this
patch anyway, and it is unlikely they created it because they wanted to.
"git branch wtf-dot wtf." followed by "git branch -d wtf." also works; for
this one, it might make sense to allow "git branch -m" to rename it, but
I do not think it is worth it.
--
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
