Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> 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. :)
Oh, no question about that. I was just pointing somebody who
already has volunteered to take a look in a direction I recall was
where the issue was ;-)
> 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