Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/4] git check-ref-format --print

From: "Shawn O. Pearce" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:26:54 -0700

Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I understand that you prefer the latter between "there is no tool; the
> caller is responsibile to make sure it feeds us canonical representation"
> and "there is a tool that makes a slightly malformed string into canonical
> form for the callers to use before calling us."  And that would be my
> preference between these two as well.
...
> But now I have spelled this out, I do not see much upside for rejecting,
> and more importantly, I think it would be an independent issue.  We can
> reject or just keep normalizing silently, and a tool to show the
> normalized name would be useful and necessary regardless of that.

I agree with the last paragraph here, we shouldn't reject, but
instead keep the current state but encourage tools to use the new
canonical print tool to clean up a name if they want to hang onto the
string the user entered and it needs to exactly match for-each-ref
sort of output.

-- 
Shawn.