Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: >> It's really not clear to me what the check in filter_refs was trying to >> do. It dates all the way back to 1baaae5 (Make maximal use of the remote >> refs, 2005-10-28), but there is not much explanation. I haven't dug into >> the list around that time to see if there's any discussion. > > I think the "funny refs" the log message talks about is about > filtering "we know we can reach these objects via our alternates, > but these are not refs we actually have".
Actually, I think the above recollection of mine was completely bogus. The && is there because we do allow things like "HEAD" (they are the funny ones) as well as things inside refs/, and the latter is the only thing we had a check-ref-format to dictate the format when the code was written. I do not mind tightening things a bit (e.g. outside refs/, only allow HEAD and nothing else). A good first step might be to enforce allow-onelevel outside refs/ (so that we can allow "HEAD") and for those inside refs/ check without allow-onelevel but without skipping the prefix. It is a separate story if it makes much sense to allow fetching refs/stash or ignoring when running "git clone". Operationally, I think it makes more sense to ignore refs/stash, not because it is a one-level name, but because what a stash is. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
