Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > With or without the patch in this thread, parse_pathspec() behaves > the same way for either CWD or FULL if you feed a non-empty > pathspec with at least one positive element. IOW, if a caller feeds > a non-empty pathspec

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Duy Nguyen writes: > >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Linus Torvalds >> wrote: >>> Two-patch series to follow. >> >> glossary-content.txt update for both patches

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

Junio C Hamano writes: > If you know offhand which callers pass neither of the two > PATHSPEC_PREFER_* bits and remember for what purpose you allowed > them to do so, please remind me. I'll keep digging in the meantime. Answering my own questions, here are my findings so far

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

Duy Nguyen writes: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> Two-patch series to follow. > > glossary-content.txt update for both patches would be nice. I am no longer worried about it as I saw somebody actually sent

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Two-patch series to follow. glossary-content.txt update for both patches would be nice. -- Duy

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > + // Special case alias for '!' > > /* style? */ Will fix. > I somehow do not think this is correct. I expect > > cd t && git grep -e foo -- :^perf/ > > to look into things in 't' except for things in 't/perf', but the > above

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

Linus Torvalds writes: > People don't expect set theory from their pathspecs. They expect their > pathspecs to limit the output. They've learnt that within a > subdirectory, the pathspec limits to that subdirectory. And now it > suddenly starts showing things

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > But that is not what I was talking about. Let's simplify. I'd say > for any command that acts on "everything" when pathspec is not > given, the two sets of actual paths affected by these two: > > git cmd --

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

Linus Torvalds writes: > No. The thing is, "git diff" is relative too - for path > specifications. And the negative entries are pathspecs - and they act > as relative ones. > > IOW, that whole > > cd drivers > git diff A..B -- net/ > > will actually show the

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 05:48:26PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > [ Clarification from original message, since Junio asked: I didn't > > actually want the semantics of '.' at all, since in a subdirectory it > > limits to the current

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 06:49:24PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > As such, the default positive match should be ':/' (which is shorter and > > less cumbersome than ':(top)', btw) > > So that's what my patch does. > >

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 1. I think some commands limit their operands to cwd and some work > on the whole tree when given no pathspec. I think the "no > positive? then let's give you everything except these you > excluded" should

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > As such, the default positive match should be ':/' (which is shorter and > less cumbersome than ':(top)', btw) So that's what my patch does. However, it's actually very counter-intuitive in a subdirectory. Git doesn't do

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

Linus Torvalds writes: > So here's an RFC patch, and I'm quoting the above part of my thinking > because it's what the patch does, but it turns out that it's probably not > what we want, and I suspect the "." behavior (as opposed to "no filtering > at all") is

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > [ Clarification from original message, since Junio asked: I didn't > actually want the semantics of '.' at all, since in a subdirectory it > limits to the current subdirectory. So I'd suggest that in the absence > of any positive pattern,

Re: Fwd: Possibly nicer pathspec syntax?

Linus Torvalds writes: > [ Duh, I sent this just to Junio initially due to a brainfart. Here > goes the list also ] And my earlier response goes to the list ;-) Linus Torvalds writes: > Most of the time when I use pathspecs, I