git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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).