From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48501F4F8 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:16:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935559AbcJQTQT (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:16:19 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:58577 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935062AbcJQTQR (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:16:17 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD7947BC4; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:16:11 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Xr77kNneYtXeAaEt+mVqueLEfGA=; b=ABG9sH igaFxuyF+4/yoob+Kp2euKBGcgl/syFZwjRlqM5fqczbxpQxsX8Xq2lfRqGNqCzI vwCgIhpqrnZIAdaqCIliowLI/mrUM2v37WxVOWDpHyhSDxmvicDzsr/AIyAMYBh/ FffQxABnOflcv2lTsH7pC8oU/H6NA21aONxA4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=ZC6qbULIDV8m82dgGq+HVTRyfyR4gbnL 0cptfP1e+E+YvQcOis/lCghPWgjeHNGq44nFF846own5IGY2AquKloWsFjNLo6e4 9CjiHrM1+6/yrXIS92vXXkGo+vgA1gcF6vQJiSvZTeuZXULwSKn1/U6oOehAjWoy JkdzNI5RYM0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1764047BC3; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63B4947BC1; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:16:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: Johannes Schindelin , "git\@vger.kernel.org" , "Karl A." , Dennis Kaarsemaker Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] submodule: ignore trailing slash on superproject URL References: <20161010175611.1058-1-sbeller@google.com> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:16:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:58:52 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2996EE36-949E-11E6-8793-987C12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: >> Where at the end-user facing level does this trailing "/." surface >> and how does the difference appear to them? I think that is the >> crucial question. >> >> Unless there is some convincing argument why "." is not special >> (i.e. counter-argument to the above "bus vs sub" and ". vs sub" >> example), I would think "existing users with /." does not matter. >> If they are "relying" on the behaviour, I would think it is not >> because they find that behaviour intuitive, but only because they >> learned to live with it. IOW, treating all of A/B/C the same way >> would appear to them a strict bugfix, I would think. > > I see, so we should adapt the windows style and chop off '/.' > to make A,B,C all the same, because internally we never produced > C AFAICT. > > These came in via hand edited .gitmodules files. Can you elaborate a bit more on this? Without seeing "The user added X/. instead of the usual X because s/he wanted to see Y happen. If s/he had X there, Z would have happened instead of Y" and why being able to expect Y to happen is a good thing (compared to Z), we may fail to notice why the more "intuitive" (at least to me) "these three must result in the same outcome: path/to/dir, path/to/dir/, or path/to/dir/." does not serve a legitimate use case.