From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:09:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0] sha1_name: grok <revision>:./<relative-path>
Message-ID: <20071219180914.GB3015@steel.home>
In-Reply-To: <56b7f5510712190940g2a377f4tfe3ca897561ed446@mail.gmail.com>

Dana How, Wed, Dec 19, 2007 18:40:04 +0100:
> 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.

This is what the pathexpand in pathexpand-patch does.