Hello, Kudos for the very quick response times, nice! I tried to reproduce this in a more isolated way and did Eric's setup where the issue was reproduced again. However, I realized I should test this without my gitconfig and could then isolate the issue to the pager delta. I then noticed the issue is reported there already: https://github.com/dandavison/delta/issues/1674. So this is clearly not an issue in git, I should have tried without my gitconfig before even sending this bugreport so I hope I didn't take too much of your time. Best regards, Rickard On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 at 23:05, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 3:22 PM Rickard Andersson > > <rickard.a1992@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> What did you do before the bug happened? (Steps to reproduce your issue) > >> Added 2 files to my repo with words in them > >> text-file.txt > >> text-file-file.txt > >> ``` > >> git grep -l ExtremelyInterestingWord > >> ``` > >> > >> What happened instead? (Actual behavior) > >> I get > >> ``` > >> text:file.txt > >> text:file-file.txt > >> ``` > > If the command line were "git grep -l <pattern> text", and there is > a branch whose name is "text", and in the top level tree of that > "text" branch's commit there are file.txt and file-file.txt both of > which have the pattern, the symptom observed may appear. > > But ... > > > I am unable to reproduce this problem: > > > > $ git version > > git version 2.45.2 > > $ git init foo > > Initialized empty Git repository in .../foo/.git/ > > $ cd foo > > $ echo ExtremelyInterestingWord >text-file.txt > > $ echo ExtremelyInterestingWord >text-file-file.txt > > $ git add text-file.txt text-file-file.txt > > $ git commit -m msg > > [main (root-commit) 765269f] msg > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 text-file-file.txt > > create mode 100644 text-file.txt > > $ git grep -l ExtremelyInterestingWord > > text-file-file.txt > > text-file.txt > > ... with your (i.e. Eric's) reproduction setup, which agrees with > the way how I interpreted the problem description in the original > report, I do not see there is any other possible output from it. > > Thanks.
