From: Jeff King Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 20:41:19 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 17/21] cat-file: read batch stream with strbuf_getline() Message-ID: <20160115204118.GG11301@sigill.intra.peff.net> In-Reply-To: <1452815916-6447-18-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 03:58:32PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > It is possible to prepare a text file with a DOS editor and feed it > as a batch command stream to the command. > > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano > --- > builtin/cat-file.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/builtin/cat-file.c b/builtin/cat-file.c > index d2ebaf1..54db118 100644 > --- a/builtin/cat-file.c > +++ b/builtin/cat-file.c > @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ static int batch_objects(struct batch_options *opt) > save_warning = warn_on_object_refname_ambiguity; > warn_on_object_refname_ambiguity = 0; > > - while (strbuf_getline_lf(&buf, stdin) != EOF) { > + while (strbuf_getline(&buf, stdin) != EOF) { This function can actually take a pretty wide variety of input. It can take anything that get_sha1() will handle. So I think that: printf ':/foo\r\n' | git cat-file --batch will behave differently (before, we looked for the literal "foo\r" in a commit message). That's sufficiently crazy that I'm OK with giving it up. A more interesting case is "rev-list" output, combined with "%(rest)". The former does not quote its filenames. So in a repo like this: echo bar >$(printf 'foo\r') git add . git commit -m one you can currently do: git rev-list --objects --all | git cat-file --batch-check='%(objectsize) %(rest)' | cat -A and get: 154 $ 32 $ 4 foo^M$ but with your patch, we lose the CR, and get a filename that is not actually contained in the repo. I think I'm still in favor of the change, though, for the same reason as some of the earlier ones. We already can't handle "foo\n", so this cannot be considered a completely robust interface. And we are much more likely to do good than harm by stripping such a CR. -Peff