Re: [PATCH 6/6] completion: clarify ls-tree, archive, show completion

From: SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de>
Date: Jun 3, 2013, 19:25 UTC
Message-ID: <20130603192555.GK2192@goldbirke>
In-Reply-To: <1370181822-23450-7-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 07:33:42PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

Show 32 quoted lines

> Currently, the 'git ls-tree', 'git archive', and 'git show' completions
> use __git_complete_file (aliased to __git_complete_revlist_file).
> 
> In the case of 'git ls-tree' and 'git archive', they necessarily require
> a tree-ish argument (and optionally a pathspec filter, or "file
> argument"):
> 
>   $ git ls-tree hot-branch git.c
>   $ git archive HEAD~4 git.c
> 
> So, __git_complete_file is a misleading name.
> 
> In the case of 'git show', it can take a pathspec and default the
> revision to HEAD like:
> 
>   $ git show git.c
> 
> (which is useful if git.c was modified in HEAD)
> 
> However, this usage is not idiomatic at all.  The more common usage is
> like:
> 
>   $ git show HEAD~1
>   $ git show origin/pu:git.c
> 
> So, __git_complete_file is again a poor name.
> 
> Replace these three instances of __git_complete_file with
> __git_complete_revlist_file, without making any functional changes.
> 
> Remove __git_complete_file, as it has no other callers.
>

Well, people out there might have completion scriplets for their aliases or custom git commands which use __git_complete_file(). Removing this function would break those scripts.

Arguably the name of __git_complete_file() could describe better what the function does, or what it did, i.e. it used to provide completion for the master:Doc<TAB> notation. But that's only the name. Since both git ls-tree and git archive understand this notation, calling the helper for master:Doc<TAB> in their completion functions is not misleading at all.

Now, __git_complete_revlist_file() provides completion both for this master:Doc<TAB> notation and for revision ranges, i.e. for master..n<TAB> and master...n<TAB>. However, since neither git ls-tree nor git archive accept revision ranges, calling __git_complete_revlist_file() in their completion function would be misleading.

git show is special, as it understands both the master:Doc<TAB> notation and revision ranges, and even the combination of the two, so calling __git_complete_revlist_file() there would indeed be better.

Gábor