On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 08:16:31AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > I was going to ask you to send your repository, but I can easily
> > reproduce here. I guess people don't run into it because it's uncommon
> > to fetch the whole refs/ namespace from a non-bare repo (and bare repos
> > do not tend to have stashes). Here's a minimal reproduction recipe:
> >
> >   git init repo &&
> >   cd repo &&
> >   echo content >foo &&
> >   git add . &&
> >   git commit -m foo &&
> >   echo more >>foo &&
> >   git stash &&
> >   git init --bare sub &&
> >   cd sub &&
> >   git fetch .. 'refs/*:refs/*'
> >
> > It looks like we are not feeding refs/stash properly to pack-objects.
> > I'll try to take a closer look later today.
> I looked at this in the past and I vaguely recall that we reject it
> in the for-each-ref loop with check-ref-format saying "eh, that is a
> single-level name".
> At that point I stopped digging, thinking it was a feature ;-)
> based on your exact observation about stash vs bare/non-bare.

I am fine with rejecting it with a warning, but we should not then
complain that the other side did not send us the object, since we should
not be asking for it at all. I also do not see us complaining about the
funny ref anywhere.  So there is definitely _a_ bug here. :)

I think somebody else mentioned recently that we do not handle malformed
refs consistently. I think it was:


which might or might not be related.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to