On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:22:31AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > I like the state this puts us in, but there's one catch: we're
> > completely changing the meaning of "check-ref-format --branch", aren't
> > we?
> >
> > It is going from "this is how you resolve @{-1}" to "this is how you
> > check the validity of a potential branch name". Do we need to pick a
> > different name, and/or have a deprecation period?
>
> That was not my intention. When used in a repository, it behaves
> exactly the same as before, including @{-1} resolution part. And by
> using strbuf_check_branch_ref(), it has always been checking the
> validity of a potential branch name, even though it wasn't
> advertised as such. The documentation needs to be updated, I would
> think.
>
> When used outside a repository, @{-1} would not have worked anyway,
> and @{-1} continues not to work, but the part that checks the
> validity should continue to work.
>
> At least that is what I wanted to happen in the patch.
Ah, OK, I did not read carefully enough then. I think that would be OK,
and probably close to what Jonathan was asking for.
It leaves unresolved the fact that the resolving feature does not belong
in check-ref-format in the first place, but we can just accept that as a
historical wart.
I don't think there is any need to prepare it upon my 4d03f955, though.
I'd think it could simply replace it.
-Peff
