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=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham 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 E604C1F858 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933225AbcKNSBe (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:01:34 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54114 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932899AbcKNSBd (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:01:33 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD094F4F4; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:01:31 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=VberNBvpRd/4le9APXdaF31cr38=; b=QxjEcd DY/H5avlw4zIYqST7WeGd0h9JOKKOfvLwf9ucoRAqCtsi5XHb4GVO5gg5XWXQUX4 Vejqq+xJFW9zodZltScyI8NDAtYhrAN8UrJ5NPPV4ALRAe3Wc54oomFX/ONrIhKa VnSivL4McHHCVZO0s5AeSa4ckx6bn6vpVZrDU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=w7jW/2vuOlAhpz6ypDuOwui5OW0q6k8f qkByxOJ/ttumahTSEPIEZJ50Y6hCzk2ByPyBMqOnOZ78SVYR0IoVALqENDW+P56e c98ysNAmOGrh6T5KC3jW5GK181cAwBIj6P8ChSvouVlfYxQm10auSw8q+d8wFEgZ hWkmd6ojEMk= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988B04F4F3; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:01:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0763B4F4F2; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:01:30 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Michael J Gruber Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Jacob Keller , Dennis Kaarsemaker , Git mailing list Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] git diff <(command1) <(command2) References: <20161111201958.2175-1-dennis@kaarsemaker.net> <0c39be16-76f8-0800-41a2-b7b1dccdd652@drmicha.warpmail.net> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:01:29 -0800 In-Reply-To: <0c39be16-76f8-0800-41a2-b7b1dccdd652@drmicha.warpmail.net> (Michael J. Gruber's message of "Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:31:06 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5F338D9A-AA94-11E6-83CA-987C12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Michael J Gruber writes: > *My* idea of --no-index was for it to behave as similar to the > --index-version as possible, regarding formatting etc., and to be a good > substitute for ordinary diff. The proposed patch achieves exactly that - Does it? It looks to me that it does a lot more. > why should a *file* argument (which is not a pathspec in --no-index > mode) not be treated in the same way in which every other command treats > a file argument? The patch un-breaks the most natural expectation. I think a filename given as a command line argument, e.g. <(cmd), is now treated more sensibly with [2/2]. Something that is not a directory to be descended into and is not a regular file needs to be made into a form that we can use as a blob, and reading it into an in-core buffer is a workable way to do so. However, when taken together with [1/2], doesn't the proposed patch "achieves" a lot more than "exactly that", namely, by not treating symbolic links discovered during traversals of directories given from the command line as such and dereferencing?