On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:01:41AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Actually the second example is a lot worse (and that is why I am > bringing it up). If git does spend cycles to realize that "git > could", for consistency, it must also check if "next" is unambiguous > between a path or a rev, i.e. it must dig history from "master" and > see if "next" appears as a path ever in the history, and if so, die > with "ambiguous argument".
I just sent a similar response before reading this, and agree with everything you said. But I wanted to point out this "we must also look for ambiguities" argument, because I totally missed it in my response. And it's much more damning, I think, because it means you can never short-cut the easy cases and say "OK, we found the path, therefore we can stop our traversal early". To behave consistently, you have to always do the whole traversal twice. -Peff
