From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 07:39:55 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 03/10] refs.c: Refactor code for mapping between shorthand names and full refnames
Message-ID: <CALKQrgdsBzcdtyej=qvaL-2rr-5t_UzXdOL-ZZ3a-rGW5V_i7Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51932F1B.9000200@alum.mit.edu>

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On 05/14/2013 04:24 PM, Johan Herland wrote:
>> I am not sure why we would want "refs/remotes/%1/%2" instead of
>> "refs/remote/%*". Maybe I've been staring at this for too long, but I
>> find the latter shorter and more descriptive and the "%1/%2" notation
>> needlessly cumbersome, especially if it's also supposed to match
>> "foo/bar/baz"
>
> "refs/remotes/%1/%2" (or "refs/remotes/%1/%*") might be a nice way to
> imply that the rule should only be attempted if the input has at least
> two components, whereas something like "refs/heads/%*" would be applied
> even for inputs with no slashes.

/me likes, at least for "refs/remotes/%1/%*".

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net