From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 09:17:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support ent:relative_path
Message-ID: <81b0412b0705040217o54d1d028j6e768bdc3eb0bad0@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <56b7f5510705040153i65ba6260v9fbe7a90e040cab3@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/4/07, Dana How <danahow@gmail.com> 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.

It probably wont break anything which is not already broken.
It's somehow hard to imagine someone would use the
syntax to check for absence of a file in non-top-level
subdirectory. Besides, the existing syntax is ambiguous:
for anyone using pathname tab completion.

Besides, you can give a warning of ambiguity in case there are
equal relative and a top-level paths. Return the relative, but print
the warning, so people can fix their scripts.

> > > 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.

Just keep in mind: "once introduced, you'll never be able to remove it".
And I don't share your feelings regarding the special character, for instance.

I'd suggest to define a special character for _top_ level. Real pity
":/" is taken.