From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7DB201A9 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 20:30:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751409AbdBTUab (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:30:31 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f66.google.com ([74.125.83.66]:33655 "EHLO mail-pg0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751240AbdBTUaa (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:30:30 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f66.google.com with SMTP id 5so14343142pgj.0 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:30:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=M8M9xAS49UQYAC+ooOq6QYoM3OJKAXIGdF345aUYmOI=; b=QTelALyb/m4y4LdXaAA1Jpa3VR7wB3bcx0C8s3v0OMRcDvEJ1NHkyEclmaTwOWEXP/ RcqQOCB1kCggG8yziljC1jJVqFu8ufomvWgt9lQUi2ZlwXLIHFzTmhIVtxBAhzSyNdtJ s/itKzR6dUN8KPg4yhERvA1KU3zWng0reE+vVjiW3BnBNa5v58YyZj7zVvaf4M7rvZoT m1y05DXPhU56fGA+GM8ufFqrF44tShj3qQGsDTqZ4ZbyLprXwIZ6mxZ20fQvvKk5zbBt dd2IBs+Q7MtQ5YKcNlCKv4RaviLe/gd1DHiFVEDaLdXnKErYSeTjZ1VecWAmxLnKcZiX 36vQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=M8M9xAS49UQYAC+ooOq6QYoM3OJKAXIGdF345aUYmOI=; b=Mn8LuLB68ELBskRwdXTxD15QKQ1oUvTrx1ZqhfyPe3Vmu/ey5Vk6xdtcKC8lSGjqNr ljwrwFOrE0XsvfNAWeeoRFd8qAb0rznjFM1XBreY6BeRCZP9ovEr0pUDACMurBDPPxdb myZMoxPl5pjYjICYqR5tan7B0DV6LBZnbHZCSwvJP8SrI5t39CTAamIC8gcyyncHU11f vk+IqECV/q42T67zGLLLZbBXbgvAjiuPA7IgrQoF1ITk/KCy41q1zze8N9HiM/XN/xeA Xg5KmTcoC+YZCIYG4cVxP2GuWOOcSeELK0yE4EawAI6qJ9AMhGehHvkYlK3zVNbJvKS+ uZXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mHjzMW45yBDCuZBHQ8Q02S+DHitW4FoFjAFuHOTueY6Kgii2ZLNC6szDw0fTGSCA== X-Received: by 10.99.157.143 with SMTP id i137mr27701918pgd.132.1487622629643; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:30:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:71d2:895f:c7:4f5e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i15sm716142pfi.94.2017.02.20.12.30.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:30:28 -0800 (PST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Siddharth Kannan Cc: Git List , Matthieu Moy , Pranit Bauva , Jeff King , pclouds@gmail.com, "brian m. carlson" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 v4] sha1_name.c: teach get_sha1_1 "-" shorthand for "@{-1}" References: <1487258054-32292-1-git-send-email-kannan.siddharth12@gmail.com> <1487258054-32292-5-git-send-email-kannan.siddharth12@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:30:20 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Siddharth Kannan's message of "Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:51:12 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Siddharth Kannan writes: > On 17 February 2017 at 00:38, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Having said all that, I do not think the remainder of the code is >> prepared to take "-", not yet anyway [*1*], so turning "-" into >> "@{-1}" this patch does before it calls get_sha1_basic(), while it >> is not an ideal final state, is probably an acceptable milestone to >> stop at. > > So, is it okay to stop with just supporting "-" and not support things > like "-@{yesterday}"? If the approach to turn "-" into "@{-1}" at that spot you did will cause "-@{yesterday}" to barf, then I'd say so be it for now ;-). We can later spread the understanding of "-" to functions deeper in the callchain and add support for that, no? >> It is a separate matter if this patch is sufficient to produce >> correct results, though. I haven't studied the callers of this >> change to make sure yet, and may find bugs in this approach later.