Dana How wrote: > On 5/4/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> I'm not sure about "<tree-ish>:<path>" with <path> being relative by >>> default. For me it is <path> in <tree-ish> (like in >>> "git-ls-tree -r <tree-ish>" result). >> >> That's right (and Dscho is also). >> >> "v1.5.1:git.c" IS "git.c that appears at the toplevel of >> v1.5.1's tree." >> >> Ok, for now let's forget about this relative stuff. > > Hmm, most of the work I do in the parts of our > perforce repository I want to convert to git is > far enough down that the paths have 6 in-repo path components. > I don't want to type all those when I want to fetch an > older version with git-show. Everything I do is relative. > In fact, I think perforce supports typing absolute paths, > (using an 8-character prefix!) but I have never used it, > nor would I if it were shorter. I think the consensus is to use <tree-ish>:./<relative-path> for relative paths, and <tree-ish>:<path> for absolute (well, in the meaning that it counts from top of _tree-ish_, and tree-ish needs not to be top tree / commit tree). And I think 6 in-repo path components means not very well thought directory hierarchy, I think... -- Jakub Narebski Poland - 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