Re: How is the ^{sha256} peel syntax supposed to work?

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2018, 21:01 UTC
Message-ID: <20180829210129.GE7547@aiede.svl.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq36uwc2s8.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

>> In other words, I want the input format and output format completely
>> decoupled.
>
> I thought that the original suggestion was to use "hashname:" as a
> prefix to specify input format.  In other words
>
> 	sha1:abababab
> 	sha256:abababab

That's fine with me too, and it's probably easier to understand than ^{sha1}. The disadvantage is that it clashes with existing meaning of "path abababab in branch sha1". If we're okay with that change, then it's a good syntax.

If we have a collection of proposed syntaxes, I can get some help from a UI designer here, too, to help find any ramifications we've missed.

[...]

Show 5 quoted lines

> I do not think ^{hashname} mixes well with ^{objecttype} syntax at
> all as an output specifier, either.  It would make sense to be more
> explicit, I would think, e.g.
>
> 	git rev-parse --output=sha1 sha256:abababab

Agreed. I don't think it makes sense to put output specifiers in revision names. It would create a lot of unnecessary complexity and ambiguity.

Thanks, Jonathan