Re: [RFC/PATCH] Fix path prefixing in grep_object

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Not necessarily.  If the user is asking the question in a more
>> natural way (I want to see where in 'next' branch's tip commit hits
>> appear, by the way, I know I am only interested in builtin/ so I'd
>> give pathspec as well when I am asking this question), the output
>> does give <commit> <colon> <path>, so it is more than coincidence.
>
> This part needs to be qualified.  "Natural" is of course in the eyes
> of beholder.  If we assume that your #1 holds true (i.e. the tuple
> <in which tree object are we reporting, what path we saw hits> is
> important and merging them into one <in what blob we saw hits> lose
> information),

> then it is natural to ask "inside origin/master tree,
> where do I have hits?  By the way, I am only interested in builtin/"
> and get "origin/master:builtin/pack-objects.c" as an answer (this is
> from your earlier example), than asking "inside origin/master:builtin
> tree, where do I have hits?"
>
> If we do not consider #1 is false and the tree information can be
> discarded, then it does not matter if we converted the colon after
> origin/master to slash when we answer the latter question, and the
> latter question stops being unnatural.
>
>> ...
>> but it might be a good change to allow A:B:C to be parsed as a
>> proper extended SHA-1 expression and make it yield
>>
>>       git rev-parse $(git rev-parse $(git rev-parse A):B):C
>>
>> Right now, "B:C" is used as a path inside tree-ish "A", but I think
>> we can safely fall back, when path B:C does not appear in tree-ish
>> A, to see if path B appears in it and is a tree, and then turn it
>> into a look-up of path C in that tree A:B.
>
> And if we want to keep the <tree, path> tuple, but still want to
> make it easier to work with the output, allowing A:B:C to be parsed
> as an extended SHA-1 expression would be a reasonable solution, not
> a work-around. The answer is given to the question asked in either
> way (either "in origin/master, but limited to these pathspecs" or
> "in the tree origin/master:builtin/") without losing information,
> but the issue you had is that the answer to the latter form of
> question is not understood by the object name parser, which I
> personally think is a bug.