From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Deleting remote branch pointed by remote HEAD Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:14:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20090121191408.GA22958@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <49773240.7090605@drmicha.warpmail.net> <49773E48.90302@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20090121161940.GA20702@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090121191219.GD21686@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Michael J Gruber , =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau , git@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 21 20:15:35 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LPiY1-0004bx-SJ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:15:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750783AbZAUTOM (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:14:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750769AbZAUTOL (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:14:11 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:53667 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750750AbZAUTOK (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:14:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 16979 invoked by uid 107); 21 Jan 2009 19:14:15 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:14:15 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:14:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090121191219.GD21686@coredump.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 02:12:19PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > I think it might be more appropriate to just care less about a broken > > symref, explain what's wrong if the user actually tries to use it, and > > otherwise mostly ignore it. > > I thought about that, but I still wonder if deleting it when the > pointed-to ref is deleted might be more convenient. Remember that > "refs/remotes/$foo/HEAD" can be accessed by a shorthand "$foo". So that > means it can impact ref ambiguity lookup. I guess the chance of that > happening is fairly unlikely, though. Not to mention that even without others refs with matching names, it is probably nicer to the user who does try to access it via "$foo" to simply say "there is no $foo" rather than a confusing error message about a deleted branch that they have to manually fix. And that is easily accomplished by deleting such a bogus symref. -Peff