From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] t/t3308-notes-merge.sh: succeed with relaxed notes refs Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 20:19:58 -0500 Message-ID: <20150107011958.GA3536@peff.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: "Kyle J. McKay" , Git mailing list , Scott Chacon , Johan Herland To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 07 02:20:32 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y8fIA-0003Mx-9y for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 02:20:10 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752104AbbAGBUC (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 20:20:02 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:59826 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751659AbbAGBUB (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 20:20:01 -0500 Received: (qmail 30277 invoked by uid 102); 7 Jan 2015 01:20:01 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:20:01 -0600 Received: (qmail 16039 invoked by uid 107); 7 Jan 2015 01:20:18 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:20:18 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:19:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 02:20:33AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The fact that "git notes merge refs/heads/master" fails is a very > good prevention of end-user mistakes, and this removal of test > demonstrates that we are dropping a valuable safety. Is it really that valuable? If it were: git notes merge master I could see somebody running that accidentally. But we are talking about somebody who is already fully-qualifying a ref (and anything unqualified continues to get looked up under refs/notes). Do people really go to the length of qualifying the ref and then get confused or upset that git did exactly what they asked it to do? I'm worried that the end-user safety here is really a strawman, and we are making this more complicated than it needs to be. -Peff