On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> This looks very good to me, but I wonder if it couldn't be even more 
> aggressive.
> In particular, the only hashes that most people ever use in short form
> are commit hashes. Those are the ones you'd use in normal human
> interactions to point to something happening.
> So when the disambiguation notices that there is ambiguity, but there
> is only _one_ commit, maybe it should just have an aggressive mode
> that says "use that as if it wasn't ambiguous".
> And then have an explicit command (or flag) to do disambiguation for
> when you explicitly want it.
> Rationale: you'd never care about short forms for tags. You'd just use
> the tag name. And while blob ID's certainly show up in short form in
> diff output (in the "index" line), very few people will use them. And
> tree hashes are basically never seen outside of any plumbing commands
> and then seldom in shortened form.
> So I think it would make sense to default to a mode that just picks
> the commit hash if there is only one such hash. Sure, some command
> might want a "treeish", but a commit is still more likely than a tree
> or a tag.

I'd think we would want to phase this in over a few releases if we do
this? Maybe at least sort commits first in the list so that they are
faster to spot.

I am trying to think of what problems we'd cause by having the
behavior be this aggressive...


> But regardless, this series looks like a good thing.
>                         Linus

Reply via email to