From: Jeff King <email@example.com>
To: "brian m. carlson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] --end-of-options marker
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 06:28:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190808102857.GD12257@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 04:17:49AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > I think if we at least choose the left-most "--" as the official
> > end-of-options then they can't inject an option (they can only inject a
> > rev as a path). I guess that's the same as with --end-of-options. But it
> > somehow feels less clear to me than a separate marker.
> I suppose if there's more than two, then interpret the first one as the
> end-of-options marker, the second one in the traditional way, and any
> subsequent ones as pathspecs matching the file "--". Writing such a
> command line would be silly, but we'd fail secure.
Yeah, I think that could work. I'd be a little concerned that the
implementation would end up complicated and confusing, just because
there are other parts of the code that treat "--" specially. That's not
a necessarily a reason to avoid it if there's a compelling reason, but I
think I favor a unique marker anyway (or at least am otherwise
> That's a good point. I don't have a strong view either way, but I
> thought I'd ask about alternatives.
Discussion of alternatives is very welcome.
I think the most compelling alternative is the one I pointed out in one
of the commit messages:
git rev-list --revision=<whatever>
which lets normal left-to-right parsing work without any complex
reasoning. It is harder to use with "$@", though.
Related, my proposal doesn't do anything for rev-parse. I think that:
git rev-parse --end-of-options -xyz
should probably return:
<oid of -xyz>
but I mostly consider that kind of use of rev-parse (pretending to be an
options parser for rev-list) to be vestigial. The main use of rev-parse
(in my experience) is "rev-parse --verify" to resolve a single name.
There are still some gaps there. For instance:
git rev-parse --verify --foo
will treat "--foo" as an option (and then complain that there was no rev
argument). I don't think you can do anything too mischievous from this,
but it might be nice to tighten it up. I'm tempted to say that
"--verify" should complain if there isn't exactly one argument, but
technically things like this do work:
git rev-parse --verify --sq "$rev"
git rev-parse --verify --symbolic-full-name "$rev"
I don't know if anybody cares or not. We could perhaps work around it by
having --verify treat the final argument as a non-option, even if it
starts with "-". That would allow those cases, but:
git rev-parse --verify --symbolic-full-name
would treat the latter as an argument (and currently that's always an
error anyway). Looking at rev-parse, there are other weird bits to
--verify, too. E.g., this:
git rev-parse --verify a...b c
shows a...b, ignoring that --verify was given, and then eventually "c".
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-08 10:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-06 14:38 [PATCH 0/3] --end-of-options marker Jeff King
2019-08-06 14:39 ` [PATCH 1/3] revision: allow --end-of-options to end option parsing Jeff King
2019-08-06 14:40 ` [PATCH 2/3] parse-options: allow --end-of-options as a synonym for "--" Jeff King
2019-08-06 14:40 ` [PATCH 3/3] gitcli: document --end-of-options Jeff King
2019-08-06 16:24 ` [PATCH 0/3] --end-of-options marker Junio C Hamano
2019-08-06 16:36 ` Randall S. Becker
2019-08-06 17:38 ` Jeff King
2019-08-06 17:58 ` Randall S. Becker
2019-08-06 18:14 ` SZEDER Gábor
2019-08-08 10:03 ` Jeff King
2019-08-06 17:33 ` Jeff King
2019-08-06 22:58 ` brian m. carlson
2019-08-06 23:43 ` Jeff King
2019-08-07 4:17 ` brian m. carlson
2019-08-07 16:54 ` Taylor Blau
2019-08-08 10:28 ` Jeff King [this message]
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).