From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make Git accept absolute path names for files within the work tree Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:05:10 -0800 Message-ID: <7v3aupzu09.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vmyt0edso.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <1196205847-22968-1-git-send-email-robin.rosenberg@dewire.com> <7vmysy7oav.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <200711290215.34237.robin.rosenberg@dewire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Robin Rosenberg X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 29 03:06:18 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IxYmt-0007pS-EF for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:05:59 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758165AbXK2CFT (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:05:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758023AbXK2CFS (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:05:18 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:56975 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755540AbXK2CFR (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:05:17 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E499F2F0; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:05:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD609ADBD; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:05:34 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <200711290215.34237.robin.rosenberg@dewire.com> (Robin Rosenberg's message of "Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:15:33 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Robin Rosenberg writes: > Maybe we should have a boolean indicating whether the arguments refer > to filespecs or not to make this clear or rewite the mingw fallouts in > some other way. I wondered the same, but my vote would be to make them separate functions. You would need a function to abstract out pasting of paths to ease MinGW people even without this "ah absolute -- let's make it relative to work tree first" hack, anyway.