From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:06:45 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] stash: change built-in ref to 'stash' instead of 'refs/stash'
Message-ID: <20091014050645.GD31810@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <548bc3a41c03a049e782d5d04a34c3b26c0897d2.1255380039.git.trast@student.ethz.ch>

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:06:07PM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:

> 'git stash list' now always shows 'refs/stash@{...}' instead of
> 'stash@{...}', because that's what we specify for the ref.
> 
> Since git checks .git/$ref, .git/refs/$ref and only then
> .git/refs/{branches,tags,remotes}, we can drop the prefix.  This only
> affects people who have .git/stash, who were never able to refer to
> their stashes by stash@{...}.  (Sadly, now they won't be able to use
> git-stash anymore at all.)

Maybe a better solution would be a "short name" variant for pretty
format specifiers. We already have %(refname) and %(refname:short) in
for-each-ref, where the latter cuts off "refs/heads/", "refs/tags", or
"refs/remotes/" from the beginning. I'm not sure if it does just
"refs/", but probably it should. It may even check for ambiguity, but
I'd have to double-check the code.

The tricky part would be deciding on a syntax. This seems to come up a
fair bit. I think there is room for somebody to suggest a more expansive
--format syntax that can handle arbitrary arguments being given to
expansions (I think there was some discussion recently in a related
thread about body indentation, but I haven't been following it too
closely).

-Peff