Re: [PATCH 0/4] repo: add support for path-related fields

From: JAYATHEERTH K <jayatheerthkulkarni2005@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 3, 2026, 02:48 UTC
Message-ID: <CA+rGoLfbzXqP1Tw+94jMmWcSGPoefMv5E_fvwriad-O5CUeKHQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3983da40-bf2c-4665-a7d9-dfebaacb8bd3@gmail.com>

Show 6 quoted lines

>
> Short question: Is using format modifier like (%path:relative),
> (%path:absolute) a good solution here? I think it can be implemented by
> simply adding a path parsing function in ref-filter.c (and some other
> work that aren't particularly challenging).
>

I see your point here. but wouldn't this effectively be the same as Ayush's suggestion, just with a different syntax? Whether we use distinct keys (path.absolute.toplevel) or format modifiers (%(path:absolute)) It would still result in almost the same internals.

Show 7 quoted lines

>
> Short question: Is using format modifier like (%path:relative),
> (%path:absolute) a good solution here? I think it can be implemented by
> simply adding a path parsing function in ref-filter.c (and some other
> work that aren't particularly challenging).
>
> It should be user-friendly, readable and free of global flags, right? :-]

I don't think the syntax is a concern, even if both of them are equally verbose.

Coming to user friendliness I believe Junio has already raised an appropriate question.