linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] refs: tone down the dwimmery in refname

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 27 May 2019 17:44:07 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>,
        Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@...il.com>
Cc:     git@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Haggerty <mhagger@...m.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] refs: tone down the dwimmery in refname_match() for
 {heads,tags,remotes}/*

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