Re: [RFC] Hidden refs

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:42:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Yeah, I believe "." at the front of a directory component is explicitly
forbidden by check_ref_format. I don't recall whether there was a
specific rationale, or whether it was simply a can of worms we didn't
want to explore.

Is "log foo...bar" a symmetric difference between foo and bar, or is it an
assymmetric one from foo and .bar?

Thanks, I was sure there was a simple example of how it would make
things ambiguous, but for some reason I couldn't think of one.

Of course, it points at an existing bug as well.  --- the example could
mean an asymmetric difference from foo. to bar ;-)

Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:42:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

quoted

Is "log foo...bar" a symmetric difference between foo and bar, or is it an

[...]

Of course, it points at an existing bug as well.  --- the example could
mean an asymmetric difference from foo. to bar ;-)

Fixed about a year ago, I think. :)  (cbdffe4, check_ref_format():
tighten refname rules, 2009-03-21, part of v1.6.3)