"Dana How" <danahow@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> How about this:
> <tree-ish>:./path -> NEW: relative
I think making "<tree>:./" mean "replace ./ with the current prefix and
retry the usual expansion" is relatively confusion free. You have to
work hard to confuse yourself:
d=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD:Documentation)
git rev-parse "$d":./howto ;# would not work
cd Documentation && git rev-parse "$d":./howto ;# would work
> <tree-ish>:../path -> NEW: relative
I would rather avoid up (../) processing if we can, but making "<tree>:"
immediately followed by 1 or more "../" mean "take the current prefix,
strip away the same number of trailing directory components as we have
"../" there, and tuck the remainder in front of the path before trying
the usual expansion" would be a natural and relatively confusion free
extension of the above. I think I can live with that, too.
> <tree-ish>:?pattern -> NEW: same as next (current :/ )
I'd prefer keeping :? (or some other unlikely-in-path letter other than
'?') as a special extension introducer character, i.e. leaving the door
open to:
<tree>:?(magic)parameter
whose semantics is to be defined later, depending on "magic".
Similarly, we could do the same for
:?(magic)parameter
> <tree-ish>:/pattern -> unchanged (sha1_name_oneline IIRC)
I do not think this is oneline. "<commit>:/pattern" could be a natural
extension to the current ":/pattern" that instructs "dig from only this
commit, not all refs, and find a commit with the oneline," but I do not
think it is a good idea. It is too similar to "locate this tree entry
from the given tree" syntax.
> <tree-ish>:path -> unchanged: absolute
Absolutely ;-)
-
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
