Jeff King <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:22:31AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > 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?
>> ...
>> At least that is what I wanted to happen in the patch.
>
> Ah, OK, I did not read carefully enough then. I think that would be OK,
> and probably close to what Jonathan was asking for.
>
> It leaves unresolved the fact that the resolving feature does not belong
> in check-ref-format in the first place, but we can just accept that as a
> historical wart.
Yup, I actually was in favor of removing that and making it a
"purely checking validity" feature, but given that it has been
advertised in the documentation since 604e0cb5 ("Documentation:
describe check-ref-format --branch", 2009-10-12), it is a bit too
late to tell users that rev-parse is the right/kosher thing to do.
> I don't think there is any need to prepare it upon my 4d03f955,
> though. I'd think it could simply replace it.
Yeah, it ended up that way, it seems. Still it needs a bit of doc
updates to balance the description. Right now we stress on @{-n}
resolution too much.
Perhaps something like this?
Documentation/git-check-ref-format.txt | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-check-ref-format.txt
b/Documentation/git-check-ref-format.txt
index 92777cef25..cf0a0b7df2 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-check-ref-format.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-check-ref-format.txt
@@ -77,7 +77,14 @@ reference name expressions (see linkgit:gitrevisions[7]):
. at-open-brace `@{` is used as a notation to access a reflog entry.
-With the `--branch` option, it expands the ``previous branch syntax''
+With the `--branch` option, the command takes a name and checks if
+it can be used as a valid branch name (e.g. when creating a new
+branch). The rule `git check-ref-format --branch $name` implements
+may be stricter than what `git check-ref-format refs/heads/$name`
+says (e.g. a dash may appear at the beginning of a ref component,
+but it is explicitly forbidden at the beginning of a branch name).
+When run with `--branch` option in a repository, the input is first
+expanded for the ``previous branch syntax''
`@{-n}`. For example, `@{-1}` is a way to refer the last branch you
were on. This option should be used by porcelains to accept this
syntax anywhere a branch name is expected, so they can act as if you
