On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 05:55:18AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I'll take these three to replace what I tentatively queued, not > necessarily because I like the change in 1/3 better, but because > these are explained much better; besides I prefer a version that at > least two people deeply looked at.
These look good to me. Between your two versions, I think the code in Jonathan's is slightly preferable. It's possible that some other caller of strbuf_check_branch_name() may run into the same thing and be fixed (I am trying to think of a hypothetical caller that would be inconvenienced by the new behavior, but I can't come up with one; and certainly the existing code would BUG(), so this is an improvement). -Peff
