Re: Extending "extended SHA1" syntax to traverse through gitlinks?

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:39:19PM +0200, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> W dniu 21.08.2016 o 16:26, Josh Triplett pisze:
> > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 03:46:36PM +0200, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> >> W dniu 21.08.2016 o 00:50, Josh Triplett pisze:
> >>> Currently, if you have a branch "somebranch" that contains a gitlink
> >>> "somecommit", you can write "somebranch:somecommit" to refer to the
> >>> commit, just like a tree or blob.  ("man git-rev-parse" defines this
> >>> syntax in the "SPECIFYING REVISIONS" section.)  You can use this
> >>> anywhere you can use a committish, including "git show
> >>> somebranch:somecommit", "git log somebranch:somecommit..anotherbranch",
> >>> or even "git format-patch -1 somebranch:somecommit".
> >>>
> >>> However, you cannot traverse *through* the gitlink to look at files
> >>> inside its own tree, or to look at other commits relative to that
> >>> commit.  For instance, "somebranch:somecommit:somefile" and
> >>> "somebranch:somecommit~3" do not work.
> >>
> >> Note that there is the same problem traversing through trees:
> >> while 'git cat-file -p HEAD:subdir/file' works, the 'HEAD:subdir:file'
> >> doesn't:
> >>
> >>   $ git cat-file -p HEAD:subdir:file
> >>   fatal: Not a valid object name HEAD:subdir:file
> > 
> > Interesting point; if extending this syntax anyway, any treeish ought to
> > work, not just a committish.
> 
> Actually, because you can use simply "HEAD:subdir/file" I'd rather
> it didn't work (no two ways of access), unless we can get it for free.

Agreed.  I suspect we'd get it for free if we introduced a syntax for
traversing through commits (by allowing that syntax to work with any
treeish), but if not, I certainly don't see any value in adding a second
syntax for accessing tree contents.

> >>> I'd love to have a syntax that allows traversing through the gitlink to
> >>> other files or commits.  Ideally, I'd suggest the syntax above, as a
> >>> natural extension of the existing extended syntax.
> >>
> >> And with the above manual resolving, you can see the problem with
> >> implementing it: the git-cat-file (in submodule) and git-rev-parse
> >> (in supermodule) are across repository boundary.
> > 
> > Only if the gitlink points to a commit that doesn't exist in the same
> > repository.  A gitlink can point to a commit you already have.
> 
> The idea of submodules is that tree object in superproject includes
> link to commit of subproject (so called gitlink).  Tree object is
> in superproject repository, while gitlinked commit is in submodule
> repository.
> 
> True, with modern Git the submodule repository is embedded in .git
> area of superproject, with '.git' in submodule being gitling file,
> but by design those objects are in different repositories, in different
> object databases.

git-submodule handles them that way by default, yes.  But a gitlink
doesn't inherently have to point to a separate repository, and even a
submodule could point to an object available in the same repository
(perhaps via another ref).

git-series creates such gitlinks, for instance.

> >> Also the problem with proposed syntax is that is not very visible.
> >> But perhaps it is all right.  Maybe :/ as separator would be better,
> >> or using parentheses or braces?
> > 
> > It seems as visible as the standard commit:path syntax; the second colon
> > seems just as visible as the first.  :/ already has a different meaning
> > (text search), so that would introduce inconsistency.
> 
> Actually ":/" has a special meaning only if it is at beginning:

True, but it seems inconsistent to have :/ mean search if at the
beginning, or traversal if not.

> But perhaps '//' would be better.

That does seem unambiguous, and it can't conflict with an existing file.
Does it seem reasonable to allow that for the initial commit as well
('committish//file', as well as 'commit//gitlink//file')?

Also, while that handles traversal into the tree contained in the
gitlinked commit, what about navigating by commit (using '~' and '^',
for instance)?  Does it seem reasonable to allow those as well, perhaps
only if you use // to reach the gitlink?  For instance,
'commit//gitlink~3', or 'commit//gitlink^{tree}'?