Re: check-ref-format question

[Geoff Russell <geoffrey.russell@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Michael J Gruber
<git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
> 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.)

Sorry, my mistake I was running in 2 windows on 2 machine and got
confused. Ignore
line 3 in my example.

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

$ git --version
git version 1.6.2.3
$ git check-ref-format xxxx && echo OK
$ git check-ref-format master && echo OK
$ git check-ref-format master/xxxx && echo OK
OK

I'm confused.

Geoff.


>
> 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
>