Re: [PATCH 2/2] push: add an advice on unqualified <dst> push
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:19:11 -0400
- From: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] push: add an advice on unqualified <dst> push
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:54:15AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > I'm not sure about saying "branch or tag" in the first bullet. It's
> > friendlier to most users, but less technically correct (if you said
> > "notes/foo", I believe we'd match an existing "refs/notes/foo", because
> > it's really just using the normal lookup rules).
> An alternative may be "looking for a ref that matches %s on the
> remote side". I am no longer a total newbie, so I cannot tell how
> well that message would help one to connect notes/foo one just typed
> with refs/notes/foo that potentially exists on the remote side.
Yeah. Really, it would be nice to imply that it somehow does the same
DWIM lookup that we do for local refs. But I didn't know how to say
that. Possibly we could refer to the documentation, but it's buried in
> > Also, as an aside, I wonder if we should allow "heads/foo" to work as
> > "refs/heads/foo" (even when no such ref already exists). But that is
> > totally orthogonal to changing the message.
> I am neutral on this point but agree that it is better done outside
> this patch.
Yeah, definitely. I would almost call it a leftover bit, but I think the
subtlety is not in the code, but in whether it is a good thing to be
doing (i.e., too many false positives).