From: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:34:21 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 08/14] completion: let 'for-each-ref' and 'ls-remote' filter matching refs
Message-ID: <CAM0VKjkMLdTzFyAdgnJsFGk4JpR-oBdnXRoeskRRSbsvT8TXcg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170324194237.td2nsiyuatexuxo2@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 04:29:18PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>>               case "$cur_" in
>>               refs|refs/*)
>>                       format="refname"
>> -                     refs="${cur_%/*}"
>> +                     refs=("$match*" "$match*/**")
>>                       track=""
>
> Working on the aforementioned patch, I noticed that for-each-ref's
> matching is a little tricky due to its path semantics. So I wanted to
> double-check your patterns. :) I think these should do the right thing.

Yeah, I always thought that it's weird that globbing in for-each-ref
behaves differently from globbing in ls-remote or refspecs, but there
is nothing we can do about it now.

Anyway, this is why the tests added in this patch include e.g. both
'matching-branch' and 'matching/branch'.