On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Karthik Nayak <karthik....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >> Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>>>> to get remotes from /refs/foo/abc/xyz we'd need to do >>>>>> strip=1,strip=-1, which could be >>>>>> done but ... >>>>> >>>>> ... would be unnecessary if this is the only use case: >>>>> >>>>>> strbuf_addf(&fmt, >>>>>> "%%(if:notequals=remotes)%%(refname:base)%%(then)%s%%(else)%s%%(end)", >>>>>> local.buf, remote.buf); >>>>> >>>>> You can "strip to leave only 2 components" and compare the result >>>>> with refs/remotes instead, no? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course, my only objective was that someone would find it useful to >>>> have these two additional >>>> atoms. So if you think it's unnecessary we could drop it entirely :D >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Karthik Nayak >>> >>> I think having strip and rstrip make sense, (along with support for >>> negative numbers) I don't think we need to make them work together >>> unless someone is interested, since we can use strip=-2 to get the >>> behavior we need today. >> >> I am OK with multiple strips Karthik suggests, e.g. >> >> %(refname:strip=1,rstrip=-1) >> >> if it is cleanly implemented. >> >> I have a bit of trouble with these names, though. If we call one >> strip and the other rstrip, to only those who know about rstrip it >> would be clear that strip is about stripping from the left. Perhaps >> we should call it lstrip for symmetry and ease-of-remembering? >> >> refs/heads/master:lstrip=-1 => master (strip all but one level >> from the left) >> >> refs/heads/master:rstrip=-2 => refs/heads (strip all but two >> levels from the right) >> >> refs/heads/master:lstrip=1,rstrip=-1 => heads (strip one level >> from the left and then strip all but one level from the right) >> >> I dunno. > > We could have lstrip and rstrip as you suggested and perhaps make it work > together too. But I see this going off the scope of this series. Maybe > I'll follow up > with another series introducing these features. Since we can currently > make do with > 'strip=2' I'll drop this patch from v8 of this series and pursue this > idea after this. >
I meant 'strip=-2'. I mean I'll add in the negative striping in this series and follow up with something that'd introduce lstrip and rstrip. -- Regards, Karthik Nayak
