Felipe Contreras <[email protected]> writes:
> diff --git a/sha1_name.c b/sha1_name.c
> index 93197b9..b8ece6e 100644
> --- a/sha1_name.c
> +++ b/sha1_name.c
> @@ -1004,6 +1004,26 @@ int get_sha1_mb(const char *name, unsigned char *sha1)
> return st;
> }
>
> +/* parse @something syntax, when 'something' is not {.*} */
> +static int interpret_empty_at(const char *name, int namelen, int len, struct
> strbuf *buf)
> +{
> + const char *next;
> +
> + if (len || name[1] == '{')
> + return -1;
> +
> + /* make sure it's a single @, or @@{.*}, not @foo */
> + next = strchr(name + len + 1, '@');
> + if (!next)
> + next = name + namelen;
> + if (next != name + 1)
> + return -1;
> +
> + strbuf_reset(buf);
> + strbuf_add(buf, "HEAD", 4);
> + return 1;
> +}
Hmph, is the above sufficient? I added a case that mimics Stefano's
original regression report (which is handled) and another that uses
doubled "@" for the same purpose of introducing a "funny" hierarchy,
and it appears that "checkout -b" chokes on it.
t/t1508-at-combinations.sh | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh b/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh
index 3a52375..ceb8449 100755
--- a/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh
+++ b/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh
@@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' '
git checkout -b upstream-branch &&
test_commit upstream-one &&
test_commit upstream-two &&
+ git checkout -b @/at-test &&
+ git checkout -b @@/at-test &&
git checkout -b @at-test &&
git checkout -b old-branch &&
test_commit old-one &&
@@ -58,6 +60,8 @@ check "@{-1}@{u}" ref refs/heads/master
check "@{-1}@{u}@{1}" commit master-one
check "@" commit new-two
check "@@{u}" ref refs/heads/upstream-branch
+check "@@/at-test" ref refs/heads/@@/at-test
+check "@/at-test" ref refs/heads/@/at-test
check "@at-test" ref refs/heads/@at-test
nonsense "@{u}@{-1}"
nonsense "@{0}@{0}"
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
