Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:

> Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:
>> +    if (!force && dwim_ref(name, strlen(name), sha1, &real_ref))
>> +            die(_("creating ref refs/heads/%s makes %s ambiguous.\n"
>> +                  "Use -f to create it anyway."),
>> +                name, name);
> Does this check still allow you to create a branch "refs/heads/next"
> and then later create a branch "next"?  The latter will introduce an
> ambiguity without any prevention, even though the prevention would
> trigger if the order in which these two branches are created is
> swapped--- the end result has ambiguity but the safety covers only one
> avenue to the confusing situation.
> And the only way I can think of to avoid that kind of confusion is
> to forbid creation of a subset of possible names by reserving a set
> of known (but arbitrary) prefixes---which I am not sure is a good
> way to go.  At least not yet.

Just for the record: after seeing the respective arguments, I consider
it the sanest way.

It's conceivable to give a configuration option for augmenting the set
of reserved prefixes.  That would allow to adapt the arbitrariness to
match the policies or ref name choices of a particular project while
keeping the set of references addressed by the standard git commands in
check automagically.

David Kastrup
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