On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:33:23AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > This comes originally from Junio's 84679d470. I cannot see how naming
> > the new branch HEAD would make any difference to the test, but perhaps I
> > am missing something.
>
> Nah, I think it was just a random string that came to mind and the
> topic being "ah we blindly dereference something when showing %(HEAD)"
> it was plausible I thought of "H E A D" as that random string before
> I used my usual other random strings like frotz ;-)
OK, thanks for confirming.
> > I noticed this while digging on a nearby issue around "git branch -m @".
> > This does happen to be the only test that checks that we can make a
> > branch called refs/heads/HEAD, and I found it because it triggers if you
> > try to disallow "git branch -m HEAD". :)
>
> About that "nearby" one, does it even make sense to do the interpret
> thing on the <new> name? I can understand "please rename the branch
> I was previously on to this new name" wanting to say @{-1} when the
> user does not recall the exact spelling of a long name, but I do not
> quite see how "to this new name" part benefits by the "interpret
> branch name" magic in the first place.
Yeah, it's arguable whether the "new" side of a rename should do any
interpretation at all. At the same time, the bug is in the underlying
function that assumes you can slap "refs/heads/" in front of the results
of interpret_branch_name(). And that function gets used in a lot of
places, including the "old" side of a rename. So:
git branch @{-1} foo
should clearly work. Doing:
git branch @{upstream} foo
is more debatable. It _does_ work, but only if your upstream is actually
a local branch (otherwise it tries to rename refs/heads/origin/master or
some such nonsense. It happens to fail most of the time because you
probably don't have such a branch, but it's still wrong to even look at
that).
I suspect there are a lot of other places that are less clear cut. E.g.,
I think just:
git branch foo bar
will put "foo" through the same interpretation. So you could do:
git branch -f @{-1} bar
Is that insane? Maybe. But it does work now.
-Peff
