Re: [PATCH v0] sha1_name: grok <revision>:./<relative-path>

> If there were additional /./ or /../ patterns in the result,  I think it
> would be more useful (e.g. for script writers who forgot to run
> their file arguments thru something like "readlink -f") for them
> to be squashed out (e.g. in Perl:
>   s#/(\./)+#/#g;
>   s#/([^/]*[^./][^/]*/\.\./)+#/#g;
> ).  But this is something that could be added later if desired to
> the interpretation of all paths,  and so seems like a different issue.