On 05/14/2013 04:24 PM, Johan Herland wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: >>> Johan Herland <jo...@herland.net> writes: >>>> Obviously, I named it '%1' since it expands into the _first_ component >>>> of the (slash-separated) shorthand. >>> >>> OK, I can buy something like >>> >>> %* >>> refs/%* >>> refs/heads/%* >>> ... >>> refs/remotes/%*/HEAD >>> refs/remotes/%1/%2 >>> refs/peers/%1/heads/%2 >>> >>> that is, for a pattern that has %*, we feed the end-user string as a >>> whole, and for a pattern that has %1 thru %N, we find an appropriate >>> way to chop the end-user string into N pieces (e.g. nick/name would >>> be split into %1 = nick, %2 = name, while foo/bar/baz might have two >>> possibilities, <%1, %2> = <foo, bar/baz> or <foo/bar, baz>). The >>> earlier ones on the above list can even be written with their %* >>> substituted with %1 if we go that route. >> >> Just to make sure. >> >> Please do not let "two possibilities" stop you. As I said in the >> nearby thread, I do not necessarily insist that we must try all N >> possibilities. "We find an appropriate way" could be just "we >> always chop at the first slash, and %1 is what comes before it, %2 >> is what comes after it". >> >> That will close the possibility for us to use %1 thru %N (N is >> limited to 2), but it still is "We have %1 and we have %2, both fall >> into the same 'path components, numbered from left to right' >> category", and justifies the use of %1 ("one", not "el"). >> >> So still no objection to %1 from me. > > I think I like "refs/peers/%1/heads/%*" better than > "refs/peers/%1/heads/%2", since the latter sort of makes me wonder > whether the 3rd, 4th, etc. components would be discarded. That said, > having %* mean "the rest of the shorthand" means that we must adjust > the expansion of %* for every preceding %N, which prevents us from > simplifying the code by using strbuf_expand_dict_cb() with a static > dictionary . > > I am not sure why we would want "refs/remotes/%1/%2" instead of > "refs/remote/%*". Maybe I've been staring at this for too long, but I > find the latter shorter and more descriptive and the "%1/%2" notation > needlessly cumbersome, especially if it's also supposed to match > "foo/bar/baz"
"refs/remotes/%1/%2" (or "refs/remotes/%1/%*") might be a nice way to imply that the rule should only be attempted if the input has at least two components, whereas something like "refs/heads/%*" would be applied even for inputs with no slashes. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html