Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> 于2022年6月7日周二 01:45写道：
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 06 2022, ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
> > From: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > `git ls-files --stage` default output format is:
> >
> > [<tag> ]<mode> <object> <stage> <file>
> >
> > sometime we want to find a path's corresponding objectname,
> > we will parse the output and extract objectname from it
> > again and again.
> >
> > So introduce a new option `--only-object-name` which can only
> > output objectname when giving `--stage` or `--resolve-undo`.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > ls-files.c: add --only-object-name option
> >
> > Something we want to extract objectname from git ls-files --stage, but
> > git ls-file don't support something like --format=%(objectname) (which
> > git ls-tree have implemented)
> >
> > So now add a new option --only-object-name which can only output
> > objectname.
> >
> > (Maybe we should add something like git ls-files --format ?)
>
> Yes I think that would be very useful, especially if we could see if
> some of the code could be shared (maybe not).
>
Maybe I can try to implement it :-)
> But in any case shouldn't this be called --name-only to go with "git
> ls-tree"'s version of this? Or is there some subtle difference I'm
> missing...?
>
Eh, git ls-tree --name-only will only show file paths, so maybe
--only-object-name
will be better than --object-name-only in git ls-files.
> > +check_resolve_undo_only_object_name() {
> > + msg=$1
> > + shift
> > + while case $# in
> > + 0) break ;;
> > + 1|2|3) die "Bug in check-resolve-undo test" ;;
>
> Use the "BUG" helper in thaht case.
> > + esac
> > + do
> > + path=$1
> > + shift
> > + for stage in 1 2 3
> > + do
> > + sha1=$1
> > + shift
> > + case "$sha1" in
> > + '') continue ;;
> > + esac
> > + sha1=$(git rev-parse --verify "$sha1")
>
> missing && here when invoking "git".
>
Sorry, but this function check_resolve_undo_only_object_name() is
just a mock version of check_resolve_undo(), so maybe I should fix
this function first?
