Re: [PATCH] Permit refspec source side to parse as a sha1

Daniel Barkalow [off-list ref] writes:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
...

quoted

In any case, don't you agree that the patch you responded to is much
easier to understand what we are (and we are not) checking than the
original code?

No, I think it's much more complicated. It mixes the semantics of what an 
empty side means for a particular use of refspecs into the parsing of the 
string. At the very least, the checks should be outside of _internal() in 
the functions for particular uses.

The thing is, the syntax is the same between fetch and push only to a
degree.  They are both <LHS> ':' <RHS>.  What is allowed on LHS and RHS
are quite different even at the syntactic level.

I already know our criteria when judging if a particular code is clean or
complex are _vastly_ different, from the experience working with you in
other parts of the system (namely, read-tree 3-way rules and
unpack_trees() rewrite that happened quite a long time ago).

While I would note that you thought my version is more complex to read, I
would not argue about this issue with you anymore, except saying that I
strongly disagree.