From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (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 9DE9815D5C0 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712762839; cv=none; b=ncm4cNp7Iy31Uo9Un5nKK2usKP3HnlBuKFlS3NxRtz+jSlDCwqi01c2zUWuvqXeYYOKWnoRM9huMKz4dkV0+y1ywRR9O56e0sgNnAKAxZQzVTRlBo+MXzxX3QYIj4JUY76kygSGqAmlULZYlo7loi2D4DG4zZ/sJxtg6S96XOM8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712762839; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/WOUc56i2LbXFHgGvdlnoU46DUWQ32rh6zg4gwwr+Y4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XHGiFJRmTxkcqcLdOlbGrmVMA51ZNIxLxpB14pryNZvtpqUK2qVJJVmlOGVQCC/vi8/7apSAFGSpELSD92Mg57iPzoGtkCH1iott8W11J2R6NHQ8mmLBTSdwDnASQlnAd0XXA23zXfNmXvPRK5n0qT8JatjtyMp/gSWEfS/gzic= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=wK4QXzLr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="wK4QXzLr" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C0D1ED322; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:27:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=/WOUc56i2LbXFHgGvdlnoU46DUWQ32rh6zg4gw wr+Y4=; b=wK4QXzLr4/ZUVViC0a90I7Syu6H7IRU7miqCF8R1RgmrS2ij005385 sBLYT3ZSfHZfaywa9G/3GLrGou9u2gCQAoE1v88XQuQVKCWg6AHC4n/kBjraTWyL 3cpUEXcKCj58jO35b9PSi+0co3wPfCsVY4nqS2ENFP0fS3Rx+F9sc= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDB71ED321; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:27:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.229.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA73C1ED320; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:27:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: John Cai via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Phillip Wood , Kristoffer Haugsbakk , Jeff King , =?utf-8?Q?Jean-No=C3=ABl?= Avila , John Cai Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] show-ref: add --symbolic-name option In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:53:04 +0200") References: Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:27:14 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CFA799CC-F74E-11EE-A76F-78DCEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Patrick Steinhardt writes: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 05:38:13PM +0000, John Cai via GitGitGadget wrote: >> From: John Cai >> >> For reftable development, it would be handy to have a tool to provide >> the direct value of any ref whether it be a symbolic ref or not. >> Currently there is git-symbolic-ref, which only works for symbolic refs, >> and git-rev-parse, which will resolve the ref. Let's teach show-ref a >> --symbolic-name option that will cause git-show-ref(1) to print out the >> value symbolic references points to. > > I think it was Peff who shared a way to achieve this without actually > introducing a new option via `git for-each-ref --format=`. Can we maybe > provide some benchmarks to demonstrate that this variant is preferable > over what's already possible? Yes, I recall that discussion, and in fact I was a bit surprised to see that this iteration still went to the show-ref route. Thanks for bringing it up.