On 5/4/07, Dana How <danahow@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
It probably wont break anything which is not already broken. It's somehow hard to imagine someone would use the syntax to check for absence of a file in non-top-level subdirectory. Besides, the existing syntax is ambiguous: for anyone using pathname tab completion. Besides, you can give a warning of ambiguity in case there are equal relative and a top-level paths. Return the relative, but print the warning, so people can fix their scripts.
> > 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.
Just keep in mind: "once introduced, you'll never be able to remove it". And I don't share your feelings regarding the special character, for instance. I'd suggest to define a special character for _top_ level. Real pity ":/" is taken. - 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