Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 43/48] refs.c: move the check for valid refname to lock_ref_sha1_basic

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:45:43 -0700

Michael Haggerty <[email-masked]> writes:

> I think we can get away with not including broken refnames when
> iterating.  After all, the main goal of tolerating them is to let them
> be deleted, right?

Or read from a ref whose name has retroactively made invalid, in
order to create a similar but validly named ref to serve as its
replacement?  So at least we need to give the users some way of
reading from them, in addition to deleting them, no?