Re: [PATCH 6/6] completion: clarify ls-tree, archive, show completion

2013-06-09 Thread Junio C Hamano
SZEDER Gábor writes: > Now, __git_complete_revlist_file() provides completion both for this > master:Doc notation and for revision ranges, i.e. for > master..n and master...n. However, since neither git > ls-tree nor git archive accept revision ranges, calling > __git_complete_revlist_file() in

Re: [PATCH 6/6] completion: clarify ls-tree, archive, show completion

2013-06-07 Thread SZEDER Gábor
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:51:53PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > Well, people out there might have completion scriplets for their > > aliases or custom git commands which use __git_complete_file(). > > Removing this function would break those scripts. > > What is the

Re: [PATCH 6/6] completion: clarify ls-tree, archive, show completion

2013-06-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > SZEDER Gábor wrote: >> Well, people out there might have completion scriplets for their >> aliases or custom git commands which use __git_complete_file(). >> Removing this function would break those scripts. > > What is the advantage of using __git_complete_file() o

Re: [PATCH 6/6] completion: clarify ls-tree, archive, show completion

2013-06-07 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
SZEDER Gábor wrote: > Well, people out there might have completion scriplets for their > aliases or custom git commands which use __git_complete_file(). > Removing this function would break those scripts. What is the advantage of using __git_complete_file() over __git_complete_revlist_file()? Isn

Re: [PATCH 6/6] completion: clarify ls-tree, archive, show completion

2013-06-03 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> I think this is the same as 5/6 and better explained in a single >> patch, as the rationale is the same: these commands can all take the >> usual revs and then paths, so using misnamed complete_FILE helper is >> wrong. >> >> Mind if I squash

Re: [PATCH 6/6] completion: clarify ls-tree, archive, show completion

2013-06-03 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Junio C Hamano wrote: > I think this is the same as 5/6 and better explained in a single > patch, as the rationale is the same: these commands can all take the > usual revs and then paths, so using misnamed complete_FILE helper is > wrong. > > Mind if I squashed them together? I'm okay with what y

Re: [PATCH 6/6] completion: clarify ls-tree, archive, show completion

2013-06-03 Thread SZEDER Gábor
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 07:33:42PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Currently, the 'git ls-tree', 'git archive', and 'git show' completions > use __git_complete_file (aliased to __git_complete_revlist_file). > > In the case of 'git ls-tree' and 'git archive', they necessarily require > a tree-

Re: [PATCH 6/6] completion: clarify ls-tree, archive, show completion

2013-06-03 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Currently, the 'git ls-tree', 'git archive', and 'git show' completions > use __git_complete_file (aliased to __git_complete_revlist_file). > > In the case of 'git ls-tree' and 'git archive', they necessarily require > a tree-ish argument (and optionally a pathspec

Re: [PATCH 6/6] completion: clarify ls-tree, archive, show completion

2013-06-03 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Currently, the 'git ls-tree', 'git archive', and 'git show' completions > use __git_complete_file (aliased to __git_complete_revlist_file). > > In the case of 'git ls-tree' and 'git archive', they necessarily require > a tree-ish argument (and optionally a pathspec

[PATCH 6/6] completion: clarify ls-tree, archive, show completion

2013-06-02 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Currently, the 'git ls-tree', 'git archive', and 'git show' completions use __git_complete_file (aliased to __git_complete_revlist_file). In the case of 'git ls-tree' and 'git archive', they necessarily require a tree-ish argument (and optionally a pathspec filter, or "file argument"): $ git ls