From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] rev-parse and "--"
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:56:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131209205621.GW29959@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqob4pycmv.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I do not share the "with --verify is better hence no problem"
> reasoning. My "not so much worth worrying about" comes solely from
> a hunch that nobody has "HEAD~3..HEAD" in their working directory,
That's what makes it a problem. This change makes it very easy to
make a general-purpose script that breaks in an edge case that the
script's author is not likely to run into. Then as soon as someone
adds a file with such a name to the test data in their repo, their
favorite general-purpose repo munger just breaks.
If we wanted to forbid git from tracking files named HEAD~3..HEAD
altogether, that would be a different story.
> and if somebody has one, then they must be using "--verify" (or a
> clarifying "--"), because their "git log" and whatever they use "git
> rev-parse HEAD~3..HEAD" for would behave very differently otherwise.
Isn't protecting against this kind of thing the reason we ask authors
of general-purpose scripts to use "simple, do what I say and not what
I mean" plumbing commands?
Another relevant detail is that using rev-parse with "--" is more
painful than without, since it includes the "--" in its output.
Without this change, it seems much more likely to me that someone
would do
git rev-parse <commits> |
while read commit
do
...
done
than
git rev-parse <commits> -- |
while read commit
do
if test "$commit" = "--"
then
continue
fi
...
done
> So it is not merely "--verify is better"---in a situation where the
> backward incompatibility matters, I doubt the existing behaves
> sensibly in the first place.
What in the former of the above two loops is broken?
> But if we cook it for a while, I suspect that we will find more and
> more breakages of expectations in the existing scripts in and out of
> the tree;
Alas, probably no, because nobody has "HEAD~3..HEAD" in their working
directory. That's exactly the problem --- it creates an edge case
that nobody is likely to test until the once-in-a-few-years moment
when they need it.
Jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-09 20:56 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 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] rev-parse and "--" Jeff King
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 [this message]
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=20131209205621.GW29959@google.com \
--to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/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).