git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>, Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/3] rev-parse and "--"
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:05:20 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131206220520.GA30652@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131206211509.GB20536@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 04:15:09PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

> If you have both a file and a branch named "foo", running:
> 
>   git log foo
> 
> will complain. We should do the same in rev-parse, and
> demand that it be disambiguated with:
> 
>   git rev-parse foo --
> 
> or
> 
>   git rev-parse -- foo
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> Hmm, looking at this again, I guess we need to give the same treatment
> to the try_difference code path above, as "foo..bar" can be ambiguous
> with a filename (and "git log" seems to diagnose that).

Here's a revised series which handles that:

  [1/3]: rev-parse: correctly diagnose revision errors before "--"
  [2/3]: rev-parse: be more careful with munging arguments
  [3/3]: rev-parse: diagnose ambiguous revision/filename arguments

While fixing this commit, I noticed another bug whose fix is a
prerequisite. That's now patch 2 in the series. I think the first two
patches are correct and should be applied.

Patch 3 is the revised version of this patch which notices ambiguity.
However, I'm having second thoughts on it. I think it's the right thing
to do if you want to help people build something like "git log"
themselves. But it does mean that we are breaking somebody who does:

  echo foo >HEAD
  commit=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

I'm tempted to say that people who did that are stupid and wrong (and
ugly, too). They should probably be using "--verify" in this case. But
it has been that way for a long time, and there are two instances in our
test scripts that are broken by the patch.

Is it better for "rev-parse" to be more careful, and to behave more like
the rest of git? Or is better to be historically compatible?

One thing to note is that "git rev-parse HEAD" is slightly broken there
already. Because "git rev-parse $some_branch" may do very different
things than what the caller expects if $some_branch does not exist (but
there is a file with the same name). So maybe we are doing a favor by
calling out the problem; if they want a rev, they should be using
"--verify" (or "--").

-Peff

  reply	other threads:[~2013-12-06 22:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-12-05 10:07 [BUG] redundant error message Duy Nguyen
2013-12-05 19:15 ` Jeff King
2013-12-05 20:00   ` Junio C Hamano
2013-12-05 20:03     ` Jeff King
2013-12-05 20:15       ` Junio C Hamano
2013-12-05 21:00         ` Jeff King
2013-12-05 21:28           ` Jeff King
2013-12-05 21:44             ` Junio C Hamano
2013-12-06 21:12               ` [PATCH 0/2] rev-parse and "--" Jeff King
2013-12-06 21:13                 ` [PATCH 1/2] rev-parse: correctly diagnose revision errors before "--" Jeff King
2013-12-06 21:15                 ` [PATCH 2/2] rev-parse: diagnose ambiguous revision/filename arguments Jeff King
2013-12-06 22:05                   ` Jeff King [this message]
2013-12-06 22:05                     ` [PATCH v2 1/3] rev-parse: correctly diagnose revision errors before "--" Jeff King
2013-12-06 23:34                       ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-12-06 22:07                     ` [PATCH v2 2/3] rev-parse: be more careful with munging arguments Jeff King
2013-12-07  0:04                       ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-12-09 21:33                       ` Eric Sunshine
2013-12-06 22:08                     ` [PATCH v2 3/3] rev-parse: diagnose ambiguous revision/filename arguments Jeff King
2013-12-06 23:25                     ` [PATCH v2 0/3] rev-parse and "--" Jonathan Nieder
2013-12-06 23:30                       ` Jeff King
2013-12-09 19:05                     ` Junio C Hamano
2013-12-09 19:12                       ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-12-09 19:23                         ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-12-09 20:48                         ` Junio C Hamano
2013-12-09 20:56                           ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-12-09 21:10                             ` Junio C Hamano
2013-12-06  1:15             ` [BUG] redundant error message Duy Nguyen
2013-12-06 22:13               ` Jeff King

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20131206220520.GA30652@sigill.intra.peff.net \
    --to=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).