Re: check-ref-format question

[Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>]

Geoff Russell venit, vidit, dixit 13.05.2009 02:09:
> 1 $ git --version
> git version 1.6.2.3
> 2 $ git check-ref-format xxxx && echo OK
> 3 $ git-check-ref-format --branch xxxx && echo OK
> xxxx
> OK
> 4 $ git check-ref-format --branch xxxx && echo OK
> usage: git check-ref-format refname
> 
> 
> 2 seems wrong,
> I tried 3 after looking at  builtin-check-ref-format.c
> I couldn't find any test cases in the git/t directory
> 
> From the documenation, I expect "git check-ref-format xxx" to return 0 if xxx is
> a valid branch or ref name.  git version 1.6.3 gives the same results.

There are several things going on:

A) In 3 you use a different git than in 1,2,4. You told us the latter is
1.6.2.3, and I'm telling you the former contains v1.6.2.1-310-ga31dca0
(which has the new --branch option).
This simply checks whether refs/heads/xxxx is sane. (It also resolves
@{-1} and such, which is what makes it useful at all.)

B) "master" certainly looks like a valid refname, the doc seems to imply
that it should pass the check.

C) Looking at the code, check-ref-format checks explicitly for the
presence of at least 2 levels: foo/bar is good, foo is bad. So, master
always had been bad, as well (or bad) as full sha1s!

The code has always behaved like C since its inception but I don't know
the rationale behind the 2 level requirement. Daniel, Junio?

Michael