From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>,
Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>,
Josef Wolf <jw@raven.inka.de>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: error: src refspec refs/heads/master matches more than one.
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:22:19 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq61o97ig4.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <530581D5.4040507@alum.mit.edu> (Michael Haggerty's message of "Thu, 20 Feb 2014 05:17:25 +0100")
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> I wonder whether we could give a way to specify a reference in an
> unambiguous, canonical fashion like I expected, for example by using a
> leading slash: "/refs/heads/mybranch". This could be a way for the user
> to ask for DWIMming to be turned off without having to resort to
> plumbing commands like update-ref. This wouldn't necessarily solve the
> problem, but it would at least lead the new user to type
>
> git branch /refs/heads/mybranch
>
> instead of the ambiguous command above, which Git could either accept or
> reject in good conscience rather than having to speculate about what the
> user *really* meant. I think that supporting absolute reference names
> like this would also be useful for scripts, which otherwise probably
> often have subtle failure modes if the user has defined reference names
> that are ambiguous, modulo DWIM, with the reference that the script
> intended.
I do agree that things start to become confusing to the end users
when we tell refnames and object names apart and behave differently,
e.g. "git checkout master" vs "git checkout master^0" (this example
uses a disambiguation syntax that is related to but different from
what you brought up).
For the <name> in "git branch <name> [<commit>]" (but not <commit>),
I do not see much value in allowing the users to say "refs/heads/"
in the first place---all the local branch refs are to be created in
refs/heads/ anyway and "git branch /refs/tags/bar" (if we were to
allow your notation to name an absolute ref) will have to be checked
and signaled as an error.
Even though there is no reason to forbid a ref to be named in such a
way at the lowest machinery level (read: at the sha1_name.c layer)
[*1*], I would say it would be better to at least warn users when
they create such a ref with Porcelain commands like "branch",
"checkout -b", etc., or even outright forbid.
In other contexts, however, it _might_ make sense, but I am somewhat
skeptical. For example, if you have a branch 'foo' (whose ref being
refs/heads/foo) and a branch 'refs/heads/foo' (whose ref being
refs/heads/refs/heads/foo) at the same time, you need some way to
clarify that you mean the former, and one way to do so may be
git branch newfoo /refs/heads/foo
and removing the latter would be
git branch -D /refs/heads/refs/heads/foo
perhaps. But this starts to sound like a workaround to a problem
that the user ended up having such a strangely named branch in the
first place, not a useful feature.
[Footnote]
*1* The way refs are used and the specific meanings given to some of
the hierarchies under refs/ by the core-git Porcelain is not
fundamental to the data model of Git. Git the SCM by convention
uses refs/heads/ for branches, and it is perfectly fine for Git
the SCM to enforce its own policy like that to its end users and
forbid creating and using any ref outside that hierarchy as a
local branch (e.g. checking it out), but I'd prefer it if we can
keep the lower level "a general filesystem to build SCM on top"
layer as separate from such policy decision as possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-20 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-14 11:31 error: src refspec refs/heads/master matches more than one Josef Wolf
2014-02-14 12:45 ` Andreas Schwab
2014-02-14 12:59 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-02-14 15:16 ` Josef Wolf
2014-02-14 15:35 ` David Kastrup
2014-02-14 16:52 ` Josef Wolf
2014-02-14 16:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-14 16:52 ` David Kastrup
2014-02-14 19:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-14 22:53 ` Josef Wolf
2014-02-15 8:53 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-02-17 14:25 ` Ingo Rohloff
2014-02-18 19:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-18 19:35 ` John Keeping
2014-02-18 19:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-18 20:01 ` John Keeping
2014-02-20 4:17 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-02-20 18:22 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-02-18 19:37 ` David Kastrup
2014-02-18 21:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-03-23 11:17 ` Duy Nguyen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqq61o97ig4.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=john@keeping.me.uk \
--cc=jw@raven.inka.de \
--cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=schwab@linux-m68k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).