Re: ref name troubles, was Re: [PATCH v2] Introduce %<branch> as shortcut to the tracked branch

Hi!

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:30:29AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

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.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
The average, healthy, well-adjusted adult gets up at seven-thirty
in the morning feeling just terrible. -- Jean Kerr