Re: [PATCH v2] add test to demonstrate that shallow recursive clones fail
- From
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 4, 2015, 07:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8Bhz3hqTSnjGgpjLugpt1+87xuYGECU5V6ZKqO+tpWTww@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq7fkx7qsa.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> As to ${sign}, I was tempted to say an empty string might be
> sufficient (i.e. "do not use 40-hex as your branch name"), but it
> probably is a bad idea. A single dot "." would be a possibility
> (i.e. a ref component cannot begin with a dot), but squating on it
> and saying "anything that begins with . must be followed by 40-hex
> (and in the future by an extended SHA-1)" would rob extensibility
> from us, so perhaps ".@c78f7b5ed9dc1c6edc8db06ac65860151d54fd07" or
> something? That is leading "." denotes "this is an extended refspec"
> and the next character denotes what kind of extended refspec it is.
> For now we say that "@" denotes "exact object name is used instead
> of a(n abbreviated) refname".How about @{something}? "something" could be "sha1" (or even rev-parse). It's not as cryptic, gives plenty of room for extension, and (to me) immediately connects to extended sha-1 syntax. Yeah we don't support _extended_ syntax right away, but in future I think we should. We can decide on a quick shortcut syntax later.
-- Duy