Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] receive-pack: optionally deny case clone refs

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> writes:

> On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 12:47 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> writes:
>> 
>> > This issue bit us again recently.
>> >
>> > In talking with some colleagues, I realized that the previous version
>> > of this patch, in addition to being potentially slow, was incomplete.
>> > Specifically, it didn't handle the case of refs/heads/case/one vs
>> > refs/heads/CASE/two; these are case clones even though they strcasecmp
>> > different.
>> 
>> Good catch to realize that two refs that share leading paths that
>> are the same except for cases are also problematic, but that makes
>> this feature even less about "case clones", doesn't it?
>
> I agree: word "clone" is less good now.  Maybe "case conflicts"?

Sounds better but I'd like to hear from the ref people first, as
they have thought about it longer than I have ;-)

>> Also it somehow feels that the patch attempts to solve the issue at
>> a wrong level.  On a platform that cannot represent two refs like
>> these (e.g. trying to create "FOO" when "foo" already exists, or
>> trying to create "a/c" when "A/b" already exists---ending up with
>> "A/c" instead, which is not what the user wanted to create), would
>> it be more sensible to fail the ref creation without touching the
>> users of ref API such as receive-pack?  That way, you would also
>> catch other uses of refs that are not supported on your system,
>> e.g. "git branch a/c" when there already is a branch called "A/b",
>> no?
>
> So we would change is_refname_available?  And to do this, we would
> change the ref_dir functions to take case into account?
> ...
> In other
> words, if the user has A/b and a/c already, and we find A/b first, then
> we reject a/d but allow A/d.   This is arbitrary, but workable.  We
> could warn about this situation when we load up the refs, too.  
>
> Does this match what you are suggesting? 

Yes.  But again, I'd like to hear from the ref people first.  They
may have better ideas.