Re: Bug report: stash in upstream caused remote fetch to fail

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 08:16:31AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

quoted

I was going to ask you to send your repository, but I can easily
reproduce here. I guess people don't run into it because it's uncommon
to fetch the whole refs/ namespace from a non-bare repo (and bare repos
do not tend to have stashes). Here's a minimal reproduction recipe:

  git init repo &&
  cd repo &&
  echo content >foo &&
  git add . &&
  git commit -m foo &&
  echo more >>foo &&
  git stash &&
  git init --bare sub &&
  cd sub &&
  git fetch .. 'refs/*:refs/*'

It looks like we are not feeding refs/stash properly to pack-objects.
I'll try to take a closer look later today.

I looked at this in the past and I vaguely recall that we reject it
in the for-each-ref loop with check-ref-format saying "eh, that is a
single-level name".

At that point I stopped digging, thinking it was a feature ;-)
based on your exact observation about stash vs bare/non-bare.

I am fine with rejecting it with a warning, but we should not then
complain that the other side did not send us the object, since we should
not be asking for it at all. I also do not see us complaining about the
funny ref anywhere.  So there is definitely _a_ bug here. :)

Oh, no question about that.  I was just pointing somebody who
already has volunteered to take a look in a direction I recall was
where the issue was ;-)

Thanks.

I think somebody else mentioned recently that we do not handle malformed
refs consistently. I think it was:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/239381

which might or might not be related.

-Peff