From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBEEC433DB for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:10:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4410E23109 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:10:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727816AbhATAJo (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 19:09:44 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:60614 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730810AbhATAJe (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 19:09:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 16338 invoked by uid 109); 20 Jan 2021 00:08:52 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:08:52 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 14853 invoked by uid 111); 20 Jan 2021 00:08:53 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 19:08:53 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 19:08:51 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jacob@gitlab.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ls-refs.c: traverse longest common ref prefix Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 06:52:31PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > > I guess they require an explicit '*', but fundamentally it's the same > > concept (and certainly they are not just single references). > > Yeah, that is the point that I was trying to make. But re-reading this > patch after knowing that it confused you, I think the clearest way to > make that point is to drop that second paragraph entirely. Sounds good. > > Based on my other poking, I'm not entirely sure that we can return too > > many results. But I do think it's worth keeping the caller more careful. > > It can return more results, but I don't think that my writing in > b31e2680c4 is particularly clear. Here's an example, though. Say I ask > for `git for-each-refs 'refs/tags/a/*' 'refs/tags/a/b/c'`. The LCP of > that is definitely "refs/tags/a", which might traverse other stuff like > "refs/tags/a/b/d", which wouldn't get matched by either. I thought that would be matched by refs/tags/a/*, but it looks like for-each-ref treats "*" as matching only a single path component. So really just: git for-each-ref refs/tags/* requires extra filtering already. But AFAICT none of that is true for ls-refs, which is strictly prefix matching already. -Peff