{"thread":{"id":"65289","subject":"[RFC] repo: path representation in `git repo info` (absolute vs relative)","startedAt":"2026-03-18T07:03:07Z","lastAt":"2026-03-18T07:03:07Z","messageCount":1,"participants":["jayesh0104"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"539279","messageId":"20260318065545.10001-3-jayeshdaga99@gmail.com","threadId":"65289","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[RFC] repo: path representation in `git repo info` (absolute vs relative)","fromName":"jayesh0104","fromEmail":"jayeshdaga99@gmail.com","sentAt":"2026-03-18T06:55:03Z","receivedAt":"2026-03-18T07:03:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jayeshdaga99@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/86013121?v=4"},"body":"From: Jayesh Daga <jayeshdaga99@gmail.com>\n\nHi,\n\nWhile working on extending `git repo info` to include additional\npath-related values (e.g., `paths.common_dir`, `paths.toplevel`,\nand `--git-path` equivalents), I wanted to clarify the expected\nrepresentation of paths before proceeding further.\n\nCurrently, commands like `git rev-parse` may return paths relative\nto the current working directory depending on context. In contrast,\nsome internal APIs operate on absolute paths.\n\nThis raises a design question for `git repo info`:\n\n  Should path-related values be returned as:\n  1. Relative paths (consistent with `rev-parse` behavior and more portable), or\n  2. Absolute paths (more explicit and unambiguous)?\n\nOne possible approach is:\n  - Default to relative paths for consistency and portability\n  - Provide an optional flag (e.g., `--absolute`) to return absolute paths\n\nThis would allow flexibility while maintaining compatibility with\nexisting expectations.\n\nI would appreciate feedback on the preferred approach before\nproceeding with additional path-related keys.\n\nThanks,\nJayesh\n"}]}