Hi, On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> This changes semantics, I think. > >> > >> It used to be relative "up" path when no funny work-tree stuff > >> is used, but get_git_work_tree() now seems to return absolute, > >> hence this option as well. If it introduces regression to > >> existing callers is up to what the caller does to the resulting > >> path, though. If it only is used to prefix other things > >> (i.e. path="$(git rev-parse --show-cdup)$1"), the caller would > >> be safe, but if the caller counted number of ../ in the return > >> value to see how deep it is, or if the caller expected to see > >> empty string in order to see if the process is at the toplevel, > >> this change would become a regression. > > > > I am somewhat negative on keeping _that_ much backwards compatibility. > > Scripts which depend on show-cdup being a relative path _will_ be broken > > by work-tree. Is it worth it to detect those errors late? > > Well, one of the conditions to accept the worktree stuff was not > to break anybody who never ever uses worktree. So if we can > keep the UP-ness of cdup, it would be much better. One could record if the work tree was changed from the default one, and do the old thing in that case. But I really have to wonder what other use people concocted for "--show-cdup"? Potentially some directory-counting? But --show-prefix would be much better at that. I'll try to flange something into the code to detect unchanged working tree, but that is rather ugly, so I'd prefer not to. Ciao, Dscho - 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
