Re: [PATCH] editor: use canonicalized absolute path

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Co-authored-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> That's a bit strange---the patch text looks like the "how about
> this" patch Duy posted earlier.  Shouldn't it be From: Duy with
> S-o-b: by two of you instead?

The idea is the same, but my patch is a bit different (use of realpath
instead of real_path, I didn't remember git has real_path). I'm fine
with Ram being the author.

>> diff --git a/editor.c b/editor.c
>> index 27bdecd..0abbd8d 100644
>> --- a/editor.c
>> +++ b/editor.c
>> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ int launch_editor(const char *path, struct strbuf *buffer, const char *const *en
>>               return error("Terminal is dumb, but EDITOR unset");
>>
>>       if (strcmp(editor, ":")) {
>> -             const char *args[] = { editor, path, NULL };
>> +             const char *args[] = { editor, real_path(path), NULL };
>
> While I am not fundamentally opposed to add a workaround for bugs in
> a popular tool many people use, I am a bit uneasy about this change.
>
> For editors that are not broken, this could be an annoying
> regression, isn't it?  When the user asks "What is the path of the
> file I am editing?" to the editor (i.e. an equivalent of \C-x\C-b),
> the updated code will start spewing a long full-path from the root
> directory, while we used to give a relative path that is short,
> sweet and more in line with the context of user's work.
>
> Compared to not being able to edit, it may be a small price to pay
> for those who do need to suffer the broken editor, but the patch
> makes those who do not need this workaround to pay the price.

Does looking at the edited file's path happen often? I have never done
that before. I ask because in order to avoid the price for those
users, the code could get a little bit more complicated (detecting if
the given relative path traverse backward outside a symlink..). To me
it seems like a good trade off in favor of simpler code.
-- 
Duy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]