Michael Haggerty wrote:

> So...I like the idea of enforcing refname checks at the lowest level
> possible, but I think that the change you propose is too abrupt.  I
> think it needs either more careful analysis showing that it won't hurt
> anybody, or some kind of tooling or non-strict mode that people can use
> to fix their repositories.

The recovery code has been broken for a while, so I don't see harm
in this change.

How to take care of the recovery use case is another question.  FWIW I
also would prefer if "git update-ref -d" or "git branch -D" could be
used to delete corrupt refs instead of having to use fsck (since a
fsck run can take a while), but that's a question for a later series.

In an ideal world, the low-level functions would allow *reading* and
*deleting* poorly named refs (even without any special flag) but not
creating them.  Is that doable?  The main complication I can see is
iteration: would iteration skip poorly named refs and warn, or would
something more complicated be needed?

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