Jeff King <> writes:

> Is it better for "rev-parse" to be more careful, and to behave more like
> the rest of git? Or is better to be historically compatible?
> One thing to note is that "git rev-parse HEAD" is slightly broken there
> already. Because "git rev-parse $some_branch" may do very different
> things than what the caller expects if $some_branch does not exist (but
> there is a file with the same name). So maybe we are doing a favor by
> calling out the problem; if they want a rev, they should be using
> "--verify" (or "--").

I tend to agree with the reasoning in the last sentence. Let's cook
it for a while and see what happens.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to