On 9/5/2013 5:23 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Brad King <brad.k...@kitware.com> writes: >> create SP <ref> NUL <newvalue> NUL >> update SP <ref> NUL <newvalue> NUL [<oldvalue>] NUL > > That SP in '-z' format looks strange. Was there a reason why NUL > was inappropriate?
The precedent I saw in the -z survey I posted is that NUL is used to terminate fields that can contain arbitrary text but otherwise SP or TAB is still used to terminate simple fields. I recall no cases that use NUL after fields that only contain simple values. >> option:: >> Specify an option to take effect for following commands. > > This last one is somewhat peculiar, especially because it says > "following command*s*". > > How would I request to update refs HEAD and next in an all-or-none > fashion, while applying 'no-deref' only to HEAD but not next? You're right. It will be simpler for clients to generate each sequence of options followed by a <ref> command without worrying about options possibly generated for preceding <ref>s. So: option:: Modify behavior of the next command naming a <ref>. The only valid option is `no-deref` to avoid dereferencing a symbolic ref. > When I said "create or update" in the message you are responding to, > I did not mean that we should have two separate commands. The nice thing about "create" is that it implies oldvalue=zero, just as "delete" implies newvalue=zero. The symmetry feels clean. Also, in -z mode we need to treat an empty string <oldvalue> as missing rather than zero. The only way to specify create with the "update" command is with literal 40 "0" as <oldvalue>. > The regular command line does create-or-update; if it exists already, > it is an update, and if it does not, it is a create. The proposed update command can be used for create, update, delete, or verify with proper arguments and use of 40 "0". The other <ref> commands are for convenience, shorter input, and statement of intent. > create-or-update-no-deref <ref> <newvalue> [<oldvalue>] > delete-no-deref <ref> [<oldvalue>] > > Also how would one set the reflog message for the proposed update? This is why I proposed a separate option command. It can be used both for no-deref and for other options we want to add later e.g. option SP message SP <reason> LF and with -z: option SP message SP <reason> NUL For now I think it is sufficient for the -m <reason> command-line option to set the same message for all updates. The option command leaves room to add a per-ref message later. BTW, the reasons I propose message as an option rather than its own command are: * It is simpler to document the reach of the one option command (affects next <ref>) in one place rather than separately for each option-like command. * It reduces the number of commands that do not take a <ref>. -Brad -- 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