Re: [PATCH v4] for-each-ref: `:short` format for `refname`

["Bert Wesarg" <bert.wesarg@googlemail.com>]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:05, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> "Bert Wesarg" <bert.wesarg@googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> Any opinions, whether we want the 'strict' mode? i.e.:
>>
>> for refs/heads/xyzzy and refs/tags/xyzzy:
>>
>> loose mode (current implementation):
>>
>>   refs/heads/xyzzy => heads/xyzzy
>>   refs/tags/xyzzy  => xyzzy
>>
>> there would be a ambiguous warning (if enabled) if you use xyzzy as a
>> tag, but it resolves correctly to the tag.
>>
>> strict mode:
>>
>>   refs/heads/xyzzy => heads/xyzzy
>>   refs/tags/xyzzy  => tags/xyzzy
>>
>> will always produce a non-ambiguous short forms.
>
> I have no strong opinions either way, but if we want to pick only one, I
> suspect that the loose mode would be more appropriate for bash completion
> purposes exactly because:
>
>  (1) the shorter form would match the users' expectations, and;
>
>  (2) if it triggers ambiguity warning to use that result that matches
>     users' expectations, it is a *good thing* --- it reminds the user
>     that s/he is playing with fire _if_ the user is of careful type who
>     enables the ambiguity warning.
>
> Thinking about it from a different angle, it would make more sense to use
> loose mode if the user does not have ambiguity warning configured, and use
> strict mode if the warning is enabled.  Then people who will get warnings
> from ambiguity will not get an ambiguous completion, and people who won't
> will get shorter but still unambiguous completion.
>
> Which means, despite what I said earlier, now I have a mild preference to
> tie the choice to core.wawrnambigousrefs configuration.
A really nice idea.  Await PATCH v5.  I had to change my plans for
today, unfortunately.

Bert
>