Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> @@ -226,7 +233,14 @@ static void parse_args(struct pathspec *pathspec,
>> rev = *argv++;
>> } else {
>> /* Otherwise we treat this as a filename */
>> - verify_filename(prefix, argv[0], 1);
>> + if(file_named_minus) {
>> + die(_("ambiguous argument '-': both revision and filename\n"
>> + "Use ./- for file named -\n"
>> + "Use '--' to separate paths from revisions, like this:\n"
>> + "'git <command> [<revision>...] -- [<file>...]'"));
>
> This seems odd. If arguments following '--' are unconditionally
> treated as paths, why is it be necessary to tell the user to spell out
> file '-' as './-'? Shouldn't "git reset -- -" be sufficient?
I find that the presense of the if statement itself even odder.
- verify_filename() and verify_non_filename() are designed to check
that the string "-" given by the end-user is or is not a filename
on the filesystem. Why isn't this caller letting the callee do
the job it was designed to do and doing that itself instead?
- we know "-" aka "@{-1}" does not resolve to a committish at this
point, so it must be a filename. If "-" exists, then why should
the user even need to differenciate it as ./- (or with "-- -")?
After all, if there is no branch whose name is 'foo' and a file
'foo' exists on the filesystem, the user can say "git reset foo"
without disambiguation to reset that path, no?
--
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