On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 01:17:52AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/builtin-checkout.c b/builtin-checkout.c
> > index fbd5105..1490e8e 100644
> > --- a/builtin-checkout.c
> > +++ b/builtin-checkout.c
> > @@ -438,9 +438,14 @@ int cmd_checkout(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >
> > opts.track = git_branch_track;
> >
> > - argc = parse_options(argc, argv, options, checkout_usage, 0);
> > - if (argc) {
> > + argc = parse_options(argc, argv, options, checkout_usage,
> > + PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH);
> > +
> > + if (argc && strcmp(argv[0], "--")) {
> > arg = argv[0];
> > +
> > + if (argc == 1 || strcmp(argv[1], "--"))
> > + verify_non_filename(NULL, arg);
>
> Why "argc == 1"? Should "git checkout <path>" really fail? That would be
> a change in behavior that _would_ hit me.
No I was mistaken about what verify_non_filename did, actually I
should not code when I'm so obviously tired, and I wanted
verify_non_filename to do what I meant instead of checking what it does
;P
I believe my resent patch is better.
> However, you may want to verify_non_filename() when argc == 1 _and_
> get_sha1() succeeded. Because then, <path> is ambiguous.
Yes and the reverse when we have sucessfully parsed something that
looks like a path as a path. Anyways, someone should carefully proofread
my resent patch, it's likely that errors slipped through given my sleep
deprivation atm.
Attachment:
pgpJytlZuzMm9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
