From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F6F632E143 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2026 04:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785989462; cv=none; b=C7Mah2QAtEhpIFLxfcBrmfxNvoq/QeS1oo7Rnx8xmTvV5Kjcz6dB636i3YIsZsVXCBRoXBuFZdQptQ+QNps670XoT/fTJ3wN8me4Ahl3NW+tjB8DeHdBARfhs5LCXEKnYUGuYFTGjTSe5+nr9nLJQ1k5u+4r+7TRFsf2zCEY7I0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785989462; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AomykgFot2jiiU1l/FzFFQzfD6pTsqJTGrtS68M+gQI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=r/Vp0VTwFA6aEllpblHON845q9HPHT0jGUxABgKnIxj+X+oSGMFZ1C8ph0IMzfVeLnY5ra+pI0qs8usjI7NOEQ/LEGErLforCxZ8FcbIHtZgf4xxnM6hEYH4fTpJvF2QWprdWyvky+qZ6s2P9gMnKw86x/3OtGFFosozcEthOuE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=B60TyS6J; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="B60TyS6J" Received: (qmail 56529 invoked by uid 106); 6 Aug 2026 04:10:53 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=AomykgFot2jiiU1l/FzFFQzfD6pTsqJTGrtS68M+gQI=; b=B60TyS6JuASq1G2ylxQ6jgR5875vzzkHGeRa4Qer7SccYJoYjL1EjK1Adi9Shuum/eX1QpybL/4MejVBGDmN2QCwLKSWGnaL7h/xBtfQW2TILbLw4L+rueF/nQ/Pg7E6d5Ul0trpd/7PkMPYggyRPPKIAPlCW4mKDqnYo6bbKFmXZDdC/k69HrCFASv51qdixScfYhpPOgomIz3fe7I1tRLkdNOQvfvV4MEERnwApNbuxT2oYbRZIlj43tBIz19haeqq16G2WyZTYH/9k21wY4DsEnkiw4kviwnflRmhA33zwx/aITpG+MtYrIwj1izwZABuslbxxa+XFeDHjjSG0w== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Aug 2026 04:10:53 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 86378 invoked by uid 111); 6 Aug 2026 04:10:53 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 06 Aug 2026 00:10:53 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2026 00:10:52 -0400 From: Jeff King To: rsbecker@nexbridge.com Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Question on textconv Message-ID: <20260806041052.GA1610686@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <017e01dd2441$476839f0$d638add0$@nexbridge.com> <20260805045026.GA972736@coredump.intra.peff.net> <020201dd24e3$89ad1220$9d073660$@nexbridge.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <020201dd24e3$89ad1220$9d073660$@nexbridge.com> On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 10:05:52AM -0400, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote: > Could we extend textconv to support %f (the original path) if specified in the > textconv configuration? That would solve the ambiguity of what is being supplied. In theory, yes. But there is one gotcha: there's a system for caching textconv output in git-notes, and it uses only the original blob id as the cache key. So I'm not opposed to adding something like %f, as long as the patch to do so handles the caching problem (even if it just refuses to cache, that would be much better than returning possibly-wrong results). That said, it sounds like you just want %f to work around a bug where the content is not provided. Probably fixing the bug is a better path forward. Looking at the working tree file to get the contents will not always be correct (e.g., if you're diffing an old tree). -Peff