On 5/4/07, Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/4/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > (1) we say it was a mistake that we did not make it relative to > the current directory when we introduced the X:<path> > syntax (X could be empty or :[0-3]: for index, or a commit > or tree object name), and change the semantics in a future > major release for everybody, apologizing for potentially > breaking existing scripts; or That would be my first prio preference
Mine too, but I don't want to break anything.
> (2) keep the current behaviour as is, and come up with a > different syntax to use relative; or > > (3) do nothing. > > My preference is (2), (3) and then (1), but I do not have > offhand a suggestion for a good metacharacter we could use. "./" :)
Heh. Yes, that works in the current patch. I'm really starting to like the idea of introducing "=" as an alternative for ":" : "=" assumes relative paths, ":" assumes absolute (full) paths. That could be Junio's new metacharacter. Since "=" is slightly easier to type [ ;-) ], and looks like a stretched ":", it's almost ingenious... (Definitely getting carried away!) -- Dana L. How danahow@xxxxxxxxx +1 650 804 5991 cell - 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