From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (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 C47BE12E47 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 02:19:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709691582; cv=none; b=UdnP/VAUn8T1xZChAldggeKTQWH7/x1J9SV11+6NmMBcCcMh7K7DdQwJ6TRLLRYO2W2cMO8iOUsdi6D9i3SJ3eo7NsTDaSTxFnrVydN9rUmQ0D3gz3SawAmdYQIEdn/68x0ESy7eK+FPwMYGjVLP3uHDEn3sGeEgSOvWenOjduI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709691582; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cK+p8+sEzDvto/IpwRd59aF3d6iqyEjbS1LdAcRl6Sw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RdgNax9abG84rLhlflVlMFLjqJrYvYnW5UILCEhBxm4VvOeDPTprY51l9OgscJk3dCxOIw2Ci7CuxuipL2OdnNyuuqR+nIKXxZxLH8CdWKvY83GFbDYDmIC1nJbDV92wmRXnd0xKNlm6H0Ibp5TiVzmxmTBf/hU7IR81N0d271E= 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=sYWMm4eh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 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="sYWMm4eh" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1435A19A09; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 21:19:40 -0500 (EST) (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=cK+p8+sEzDvto/IpwRd59aF3d6iqyEjbS1LdAc Rl6Sw=; b=sYWMm4ehmH7QXp6ca+bYwOTKYfpJYcheodeQGmnBPHNh7fLdCe6G79 /O3ITF48t5NIe+1SqdWYybUDN0t4Oz+hDvhaNYxfuYXNamrTiRm1DQEHrHqvnPrD nV38bqQoLtK0ycaw9dBP24JmqOOec66rvRsIsd63fykGXdVhxLutM= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D23519A08; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 21:19:40 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.185.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9804D19A07; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 21:19:36 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, John Cai via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, John Cai Subject: Re: [PATCH] show-ref: add --unresolved option In-Reply-To: <20240306003343.GA3797463@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:33:43 -0500") References: <20240306003343.GA3797463@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 18:19:34 -0800 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: FA84071C-DB5F-11EE-BEB1-F515D2CDFF5E-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Jeff King writes: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 03:30:35PM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote: > >> Hi John >> >> On 04/03/2024 22:51, 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 add a --unresolved >> > option that will only take one ref and return whatever it points to >> > without dereferencing it. >> >> "--unresolved" makes me think of merge conflicts. I wonder if >> "--no-dereference" would be clearer. > > We have "--no-deref" in "git update-ref" already. It is probably better > to stay consistent. That's an excellent precedent. Thanks.