On Fri, Dec 16 2022, Karthik Nayak wrote: > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20221206103736.53909-1-karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx/ > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAOLa=ZSsFGBw3ta1jWN8cmUch2ca=zTEjp1xMA6Linafx9W53g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t Could you please set the In-Reply-To header appropriately in the future, so that each version of this series isn't in its own disconnected thread? > This series aims to add a new flag `-r|--revisions` to git-check-attr(1) which > allows us to read gitattributes from the specified revision. I didn't look at the v2, but expected at least the short form to be gone here re https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAOLa=ZTSzUh2Ma_EMHHWcDunGyKMaUW9BaG=QdegtMqLd+69Wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/; I'm still more partial to the alternate suggestion I had in https://lore.kernel.org/git/221207.86lenja0zi.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/; I'm not sure what you meant in your reply at https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAOLa=ZQua8TfApCdzoK06_2fkWb4ZCfWewXKOSaXno1fqFSq2A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ (sorry about not following up at the time) with: "when being consistent we need to be fully consistent, i.e. <revision>:<path>, tweaking this slightly to be <revision>:<attr> is worse than breaking consistency." Yes, it would, but isn't that by definition the case with any proposal? We don't have a way to refer to an attribute (or all attributes for -a) for a given revision/path, the task of this series is to invent such a syntax. So we could invent that as this series currently does with: git check-attrs --revision <rev> <attr>... <path>... Or, as I suggested: git check-attr [<rev>:]<attr>... -- <path>... Or whatever. Here I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but advocating for one on the basis of consistency doesn't make sense to me, this is new syntax. I think what you mean is that because the log family uses "<rev>:<path>" we should not come up with a syntax that looks anything like "<lhs>:<rhs>"., as the "<lhs>" in the mind of some users is going to be "<rev>", and the "<rhs>" is "<path>", so it would be confusing to have it be "<attr>" here, and have the "<path>..." come after the "--". I'm not convinced by that. From refspecs to e.g. "git log"'s own "-L" we have little mini-syntaxes in various places that use this sort of colon notation. I find it more elegant than "--revision". It's fine if you disagree, I'm just trying to understand the basis of the disagreement.
