Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] add-patch: classify '@' as a synonym for 'HEAD'

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Ghanshyam Thakkar <shyamthakkar001@gmail.com> writes:

> Currently, (checkout, reset, restore) commands correctly take '@' as a
> synonym for 'HEAD'. However, in patch mode (-p/--patch), for both '@'
> and 'HEAD', different prompts/messages are given by the commands
> mentioned above (because of applying reverse mode(-R) in case of '@').
> This is due to the literal and only string comparison with the word
> 'HEAD' in run_add_p(). Synonymity between '@' and 'HEAD' is obviously
> desired, especially since '@' already resolves to 'HEAD'.
>
> Therefore, replace '@' to 'HEAD' at the beginning of
> add-patch.c:run_add_p().

Of course there is only one possible downside for this approach, in
that if we are using "revision" in an error message, users who asked
for "@" may complain when an error message says "HEAD" in it.  I think
the simplicity of the implementation far outweighs this downside.

> There is also logic in builtin/checkout.c to
> convert all command line input rev to the raw object name for underlying
> machinery (e.g., diff-index) that does not recognize the <a>...<b>
> notation, but we'd need to leave 'HEAD' intact. Now we need to teach
> that '@' is a synonym to 'HEAD' to that code and leave '@' intact, too.

Makes me wonder why we cannot use the same "normalize @ to HEAD
upfront" approach here, though?

It would involve translating "@" given to new_branch_info->name to
"HEAD" early, possibly in setup_new_branch_info_and_source_tree(),
and that probably will fix the other strcmp() with "HEAD" that
appears in builtin/checkout.c:update_refs_for_switch() as well, no?

> +	/* helpful in deciding the patch mode ahead */
> +	if(revision && !strcmp(revision, "@"))
> +		revision = "HEAD";

Style.  "if (revision ...)"