Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] transport.c: introduce core.alternateRefsPrefixes

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
To: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Cc: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, sunshine@sunshineco.com,
	sbeller@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] transport.c: introduce core.alternateRefsPrefixes
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 19:00:36 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181002020036.GA62117@syl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181002015737.GF96979@syl>

On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 06:57:37PM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 03:34:26AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 03:05:57PM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote:
> >
> > > > > For example, to advertise only tags, a caller using
> > > > > 'core.alternateRefsCommand' would have to do:
> > > > >
> > > > >   $ git config core.alternateRefsCommand ' \
> > > > >       git -C "$1" for-each-ref refs/tags --format="%(objectname)"'
> > > >
> > > > This has the same "$@" issue as the previous one, I think (which only
> > > > makes your point about it being cumbersome more true!).
> > >
> > > Hmm. I'll be curious to how you respond to my other message about the
> > > same topic. I feel that whatever the outcome there is will affect both
> > > locations in the same way.
> >
> > I think they're separate issues, right? I was just confused on the
> > earlier patch, but the "git config" command you show above is the actual
> > broken case isn't it?
>
> Ah, I certainly had these mixed up on Saturday when I wrote what is
> quoted here. As I understand it now, you were talking about the
> difference between $@ and "$@", which I did fix (by rewriting the former
> to the later).

Double "ah!". You were talking about getting the path to the repository
stuck on the end, which _is_ a problem here. I'll fix that.

> > I'm not overly concerned since this isn't recommending the technique to
> > end users (and in fact the whole point is to give an alternative), but
> > it may be worth showing a working command in case anybody runs across
> > it.
>
> Completely agree, and thanks for your review.

Thanks,
Taylor