On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 17:57 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ... The code may already
> handle it, or there may need even more code to support the rename; I
> didn't check.
>
As far as I could see there the code does seem to already handle the
rename. This part of builtin/branch.c is what seems to
Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
>> The only difference is improved tests where we use show-ref to make
>> sure refs/heads/HEAD does not exist when it shouldn't, exercise
>> update-ref to create and delete refs/heads/HEAD, and also make sure
>> it can be deleted with "git
Junio C Hamano writes:
>
> > Perhaps. Also we may want to make sure that "git branch -D HEAD"
> > still works as a way to recover from historical mistakes.
>
> The only difference is improved tests where we use show-ref to make
> sure refs/heads/HEAD does not exist when it
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:20:11AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
> >> Should we test that:
> >>
> >> git update-ref refs/heads/HEAD HEAD^
> >>
> >> continues to work?
> >
> > Perhaps. Also we may want to make sure that "git branch -D HEAD"
> >
Junio C Hamano writes:
>> Should we test that:
>>
>> git update-ref refs/heads/HEAD HEAD^
>>
>> continues to work?
>
> Perhaps. Also we may want to make sure that "git branch -D HEAD"
> still works as a way to recover from historical mistakes.
The only difference is
Jeff King writes:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:11:32PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> strbuf_check_branch_ref() is the central place where many codepaths
>> see if a proposed name is suitable for the name of a branch. It was
>> designed to allow us to get stricter than the
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:11:32PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> strbuf_check_branch_ref() is the central place where many codepaths
> see if a proposed name is suitable for the name of a branch. It was
> designed to allow us to get stricter than the check_refname_format()
> check used for
7 matches
Mail list logo