From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E630C433F5 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:06:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B71561152 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:06:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343582AbhIQXHd (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:07:33 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:61196 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233207AbhIQXHc (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:07:32 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F0C51594E0; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:06:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=vZIr+099e+Ov t0w4Pn8odudiJRuhGl5SPLiVjf2pw3k=; b=L8IiES7iQqpYxjNO15B/CEToH8f6 Pm0/N46h76X9OGbSkasfUcFwr0hw2iOdFYeaXPXT21GiRmPREGLIXQWmYFGp0bwu 9Px8p3L4rJo0+u0mBxoKJ6v5Gjx16Iwm5XA2OoOWmisfw6HQi4QCnDXO13MbRM9d gmjZgtp4qOxmLRs= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288421594DF; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:06:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.133.2.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73DF01594DE; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:06:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n?= Cc: Jeff King , gitmailinglist.bentolor@xoxy.net, git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Should `@` be really a valid git tag name? References: <0c68d628-e093-1cbd-e3bd-38a827545418@gmx.net> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:06:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: ("Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n=22's?= message of "Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:58:20 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D68C8A2E-180B-11EC-BA60-98D80D944F46-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Carlo Marcelo Arenas Bel=C3=B3n writes: > I was leaning towards something like that plus a Documentation update, = but > noticed that the current behaviour was inconsistent, and the confusion > pointed out by Junio seems to indicate it is better if fully restricted= . That is a bad move, as existing repositories may have a ref with such a name. If we tighten anything retroactively, we probably should forgid '@' short-hand that stands for HEAD, I would think.