On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 16:37 -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:34:53PM -0400, David Turner wrote:
>
> > > I thought the point is that one is a lesser check than the other,
> > > and
> > > we
> > > need different rules for different situations. So we might allow
> > > deletion on
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:37:28PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > > But anything writing a _new_ refname (whether the actual ref, or
> > > referencing it via a symref) should be using check_refname_format()
> > > before writing.
> >
> > Unfortunately, neither check is lesser -- refname_is_safe
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:34:53PM -0400, David Turner wrote:
> > I thought the point is that one is a lesser check than the other, and
> > we
> > need different rules for different situations. So we might allow
> > deletion on a refname that does not pass check_refname_format(), but
> > we
> >
On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 16:15 -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:10:32PM -0400, David Turner wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 10:59 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > > There is another call to refname_is_safe() in
> > > resolve_ref_unsafe(),
> > > which applies the sanity
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:10:32PM -0400, David Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 10:59 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > There is another call to refname_is_safe() in resolve_ref_unsafe(),
> > which applies the sanity check to the string from a symref. We seem
> > to allow
> >
> > $
On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 10:59 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> There is another call to refname_is_safe() in resolve_ref_unsafe(),
> which applies the sanity check to the string from a symref. We seem
> to allow
>
> $ git symbolic-ref refs/heads/SSS refs/heads//master
>
> and we end up storing
Michael Haggerty writes:
> Does anybody have a use case for allowing un-normalized reference
> names like "refs/foo/../bar///baz"? I'm pretty certain they would not
> be handled correctly anyway, especially if they are not stored as
> loose references.
I wondered what
The reference name is going to be compared to other reference names, so
it should be in its normalized form.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
---
Does anybody have a use case for allowing un-normalized reference
names like "refs/foo/../bar///baz"? I'm pretty certain they
8 matches
Mail list logo