On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 01:08:46PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Right, and I'm with you so far, this makes sense to me for all existing
> > uses of the peel syntax, otherwise v2.17.0^{tree} wouldn't be the same
> > as rev-parse v2.17.0^{tree}^{tree}...
>
> More importantly, you could spell v2.17.0 part of the above with a
> short hexadecimal string. And that string should be naming some
> tree-ish, the most important thing being that it is *NOT* required
> to be a tree (and practically, it is likely that the user has a
> tree-ish that is *NOT* a tree).
>
> I guess I have a reaction to the title
>
> "get_short_oid/peel_onion: ^{tree} should be tree"
>
> "X^{tree}" should *RESULT* in a tree, but it should *REQUIRE* X to
> be a tree-ish. It is unclear "should be tree" is about the former
> and I read (perhaps mis-read) it as saying "it should require X to
> be a tree"---that statement is utterly incorrect as we agreed above.
FWIW, I had the same feeling as you when reading this, that this commit
(and the one after) are doing the wrong thing. And these paragraphs sum
it up. The "^{tree}" is about asking us to peel to a tree, not about
resolving X in the first place. We can use it as a _hint_ when resolving
X, but the correct hint is "something that can be peeled to a tree", not
"is definitely a tree".
-Peff
