From: Dana How <danahow@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 08:53:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support ent:relative_path
Message-ID: <56b7f5510705040153i65ba6260v9fbe7a90e040cab3@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0705040147h1bab8f6ao3ce2c486637a0d4f@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/4/07, Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> >  (1) we say it was a mistake that we did not make it relative to
> >      the current directory when we introduced the X:<path>
> >      syntax (X could be empty or :[0-3]: for index, or a commit
> >      or tree object name), and change the semantics in a future
> >      major release for everybody, apologizing for potentially
> >      breaking existing scripts; or
>
> That would be my first prio preference
Mine too,  but I don't want to break anything.

> >  (2) keep the current behaviour as is, and come up with a
> >      different syntax to use relative; or
> >
> >  (3) do nothing.
> >
> > My preference is (2), (3) and then (1), but I do not have
> > offhand a suggestion for a good metacharacter we could use.
>
> "./" :)
Heh.  Yes, that works in the current patch.

I'm really starting to like the idea of introducing "="
as an alternative for ":" :
"=" assumes relative paths, ":" assumes absolute (full) paths.
That could be Junio's new metacharacter.

Since "=" is slightly easier to type [ ;-) ], and looks like a stretched ":",
it's almost ingenious...
(Definitely getting carried away!)
-- 
Dana L. How  danahow@gmail.com  +1 650 804 5991 cell