From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E1F1F462 for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 15:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726494AbfE0PoK (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2019 11:44:10 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f43.google.com ([209.85.221.43]:35865 "EHLO mail-wr1-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726202AbfE0PoK (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2019 11:44:10 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f43.google.com with SMTP id s17so17311766wru.3 for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 08:44:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2A4/Dy7CeUNWJQHbbLk0HO1r8qYMXPrMtWyOg+ikpyk=; b=EH2z9mVd1rQDD7pGoqcmQYuf2V3S3BRxvb9u1fIF+t787j7GXynwJnEpzCHgYXCAfC RTslgBG7jWnXFzM1LRB3CN1OcJ83SjnUNP6R484qsIE1vroTTsunL4vj6tv70zOFnA/2 2F8Q/wSsEW8wuZPZvHpYh1E85rrChC/gAXZcte3TFL/T5JrJ1EwPCJyykr49kr2uqhkQ 0fGlv+J/xaVV4SH2py8N3FfFaVX/jTyBi8CjQsVL1Yxpuqj6sSDxQ9vS1VuaRxtgKPn8 S0nFIzN6Liyb8wNuspDTngK5plN1kh3LH2Fx/xOTEKT+nx7z1i1uRLnKNAiWB5WCE+8e 64Dw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUgnsm0lK0x/20jx9roeXDDjJAAAXWRqYIZuOAs31WLQEi+h6N7 5/kUUC/H7OzH35B2pLpklaukPA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxek10K/dO9NSTEttg+mnORuKnxwc7jyGofKaHXmyE/ma/6TRaCxUAv7G+DGuJ8bDopIl1MFQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ef8d:: with SMTP id d13mr6429556wro.60.1558971848967; Mon, 27 May 2019 08:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:b07:6468:f312:c92d:f9e8:f150:3553? ([2001:b07:6468:f312:c92d:f9e8:f150:3553]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s62sm22814951wmf.24.2019.05.27.08.44.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 May 2019 08:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] refs: tone down the dwimmery in refname_match() for {heads,tags,remotes}/* To: Junio C Hamano , =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Linux List Kernel Mailing , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , KVM list , Michael Haggerty References: <20190526225445.21618-1-avarab@gmail.com> <5c9ce55c-2c3a-fce0-d6e3-dfe5f8fc9b01@redhat.com> <874l5gezsn.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 17:44:07 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 27/05/19 17:39, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I do not think lightweight vs annotated should be the issue. The > tag that the requestor asks to be pulled (from repository ../b) > should be what the requestor has locally when writing the request > (in repository .). Even if both tags at remote and local are > annotated, we should still warn if they are different objects, no? Right, lightweight vs annotated then is the obvious special case where one of the two is a commit and the other is a tag, hence they ought not to have the same SHA1. I'll take a look. Paolo