From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AABA1F4B5 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728547AbfKSQ4M (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:56:12 -0500 Received: from smtprelay08.ispgateway.de ([134.119.228.108]:27613 "EHLO smtprelay08.ispgateway.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728445AbfKSQ4M (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:56:12 -0500 Received: from [24.134.116.61] (helo=[192.168.92.208]) by smtprelay08.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1iX6nP-0001IT-8z; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 17:56:07 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] commit: support the --pathspec-from-file option To: Junio C Hamano , Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget Cc: git@vger.kernel.org References: From: Alexandr Miloslavskiy Message-ID: <74889f88-b5dd-b1bd-f619-9201ce14db29@syntevo.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 17:56:06 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Df-Sender: YWxleGFuZHIubWlsb3NsYXZza2l5QHN5bnRldm8uY29t Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 19.11.2019 7:10, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> +--pathspec-file-nul:: >> + Only meaningful with `--pathspec-from-file`. Pathspec elements are >> + separated with NUL character and are not expected to be quoted. > > Although it is not incorrect, "are not expected to be quoted" feels > a bit weak as the technical description. Are they not expected to > be quoted, but the command gracefully works on them even when they > are found to be quoted? > > Rephrasing to avoid such misinterpretation may be worth doing, > perhaps > > ... and are taken as-is without unquoting (i.e. as if > `core.quotePath` is set to `false`). > > or something like that? I think that a reference to `core.quotePath` could be confusing here, because it doesn't really affect the option. I have reworded it in V3, please see if you like it. Thanks for pointing out!