Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] rev-parse: match ^{<type>} case-insensitively
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Mar 27, 2017, 07:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20170327071158.4s3h7qwlyqogioli@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqk27b2s8p.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 10:39:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > > FWIW, I cannot see us ever adding TREE (or Tree) as a separate type. > > It's too confusing for no gain. We'd call it "tree2" or something more > > obvious. > > In case it was not clear, I didn't mean to say I _want_ to leave > that door open. Well, I cannot imagine it was unclear, as I said I > do not at all mind declaring that all object names will be lowercase > to allow us freely downcase what we got at the UI level.
No, I understood that. You just mentioned "list consensus" so I was trying to give my two cents. ;)
Show 9 quoted lines
> > I dunno. I guess I have never wanted to type "^{Tree}" in the first
> > place, so I do not personally see the _benefit_. Which makes it easy to
> > see even small negatives as a net loss.
>
> As to the potential _benefit_, I do not see much either myself, but
> we already are seeing somebody cared enough to throw us a patch, so
> to some people there are clearly perceived benefit. I do not think
> closing the door for typenames that are not lowercase is a negative
> change at all.By negative, I just meant potential confusion when we are half-way there (e.g., "foo^{TREE}" works but "git cat-file TREE foo" does not).
Show 6 quoted lines
> I just wanted the patch to make it clear that it is making such a > system-wide design decision and casting it in stone. Which includes > that "cat-file <type>" and "hash-object -t <type>" get the same > case-insensitivity update and probably writing that design decision > down somewhere in the documentation, perhaps in the glossary where > we talk about the "object type".
Yes, I agree that that is the right path forward.
-Peff