BUG: check-ref-format and rev-parse can not handle branches with an @ in their name combined with @{u}

2014-01-14 Thread Keith Derrick
I couldn't find a duplicate in the JIRA instance. According to the documentation of check-ref-format, a branch name such as @mybranch is valid. Yet 'git check-ref-format --branch @mybranch@{u}' claims @mybranch is an invalid branch name. yet I am able to create the branch (which would seem the

Re: BUG: check-ref-format and rev-parse can not handle branches with an @ in their name combined with @{u}

2014-01-14 Thread Junio C Hamano
Keith Derrick keith.derr...@lge.com writes: I couldn't find a duplicate in the JIRA instance. Don't worry, we do not use any JIRA instance ;-) According to the documentation of check-ref-format, a branch name such as @mybranch is valid. Correct. Yet 'git check-ref-format --branch

Re: BUG: check-ref-format and rev-parse can not handle branches with an @ in their name combined with @{u}

2014-01-14 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 03:45:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: Yet 'git check-ref-format --branch @mybranch@{u}' claims @mybranch is an invalid branch name. I do not think it claims any such thing. $ git check-ref-format --branch @foo@{u}; echo $? fatal: '@foo@{u}' is not a

Re: BUG: check-ref-format and rev-parse can not handle branches with an @ in their name combined with @{u}

2014-01-14 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: Is that what --branch does? I have never used it, but the manpage seems to suggest it is about _parsing_ (which, IMHO, means it probably should have been an option to rev-parse, but that is another issue altogether). Ahh, of course you are right. I never use

Re: BUG: check-ref-format and rev-parse can not handle branches with an @ in their name combined with @{u}

2014-01-14 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:46:58PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: Is that what --branch does? I have never used it, but the manpage seems to suggest it is about _parsing_ (which, IMHO, means it probably should have been an option to rev-parse, but that is