From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Git archiving only branch work Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:39:38 -0500 Message-ID: <20141113213937.GD7563@peff.net> References: <5464a4e8.4a0.2bfa0e00.3067f800@geldenhuys.co.uk> <20141113133615.GA28346@lanh> <20141113200640.GB3869@peff.net> <20141113213318.GA7563@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Duy Nguyen , Graeme Geldenhuys , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 13 22:39:44 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xp27E-000752-Be for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:39:44 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934678AbaKMVjl (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:39:41 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:40139 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S934250AbaKMVjk (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:39:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 17560 invoked by uid 102); 13 Nov 2014 21:39:40 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:39:40 -0600 Received: (qmail 32165 invoked by uid 107); 13 Nov 2014 21:39:50 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:39:50 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:39:38 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:36:48PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I agree it is probably OK in practice and for the OP's question, but it > > is nice to have "-z" variants so you do not have to worry about quoting > > at all. I'd argue that a "--stdin -z" should probably also accept raw > > filenames, not pathspecs, too (so you do not have to use > > "--literal-pathspecs" elsewhere). > > I agree "--stdin -z" is a good thing but what makes you think that > the producer of the data is _always_ walking the directory hierarchy > and showing the pathnames it sees? I think use of literal-pathspecs > should not be tied to the use of either --stdin or -z. I agree they are technically orthogonal, but I cannot think of a case where I have ever generated actual _pathspecs_, which might have wildcards, and needed to use "-z". The point of using "-z" is that you do not know what crap you are feeding. Normally I'm in favor of keeping things as flexible as possible, but it seems very likely that somebody would forget pathspecs in such a case (the OP did in his example, and I know I have many times in the past). I don't feel too strongly about it, though. -Peff