On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Eric Raible <raible@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> "Eric Raible" <raible@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> Is there anything to fix? In that example, you are looking for a commit >> that talks about "object name:sha1_name.c" in the comment. > > Yes. What if I'm looking for specific file (i.e. sha1_name.c) in the commit > described by ":/object name:", just like I can do with 28a4d9404:sha1_name.c? > > This is not ambiguous if we first consider the entire string as the prefix. > If that fails we look for a filename after the final ':'. In part you are proposing this because it is a consistent extension. But a problem with the current :/string is that it adds 2nd meanings to both : and / , which is not all that consistent to start with. Last year Junio proposed that :/ be changed to ? to eliminate the overloading; thus your proposal becomes: ?string:filename He chose ? because it results in a search backwards through commits. (You could make that ?string?:filename if you prefer, where the 2nd ? is only needed if you include a filename.) I was surprised to see Dscho advocating removing this feature altogether. Others proposed other command sequences which avoided :/ . If :/ is now going to be extended and thus perhaps more likely to appear in scripts, is now the time to change it to ? which has no other special meaning to git? Thanks, -- Dana L. How danahow@xxxxxxxxx +1 650 804 5991 cell -- 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
