Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 07:45:46PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > So I think the right endgame in the longer term is:
>> > ...
>>
>> Here is to illustrate what I mean in a patch form. It resurrects
>> the gentle setup, and uses a purely textual format check when we are
>> outside the repository, while bypassing the @{magic} interpolation
>> codepath that requires us to be in a repository. When we are in a
>> repository, we operate the same way as before.
>
> I like the state this puts us in, but there's one catch: we're
> completely changing the meaning of "check-ref-format --branch", aren't
> we?
>
> It is going from "this is how you resolve @{-1}" to "this is how you
> check the validity of a potential branch name". Do we need to pick a
> different name, and/or have a deprecation period?
That was not my intention. When used in a repository, it behaves
exactly the same as before, including @{-1} resolution part. And by
using strbuf_check_branch_ref(), it has always been checking the
validity of a potential branch name, even though it wasn't
advertised as such. The documentation needs to be updated, I would
think.
When used outside a repository, @{-1} would not have worked anyway,
and @{-1} continues not to work, but the part that checks the
validity should continue to work.
At least that is what I wanted to happen in the patch.
