[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <517B62D8.5020006@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:32:08 +0200
From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@...m.mit.edu>
To: shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@...il.com>
CC: Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>, git@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v1.8.3-rc0
On 04/27/2013 04:24 AM, shawn wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com> wrote:
>
>> * There was no good way to ask "I have a random string that came from
>> outside world. I want to turn it into a 40-hex object name while
>> making sure such an object exists". A new peeling suffix ^{object}
>> can be used for that purpose, together with "rev-parse --verify".
>>
>
> What does this mean / what is the reason behind this? I can only think
> it might be useful in a test suite to make sure git isn't doing
> anything stupid with hashes...?
The topic is discussed here:
http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/Bug-in-quot-git-rev-parse-verify-quot-td7580929.html
As discussed in the thread, when verifying that an argument names an
existing object, it is usually also appropriate to verify that the named
object is of a particular type (or can be converted to a particular
type), which could already be done with syntax like
"$userstring^{commit}". But if, for example, you want to avoid
unwrapping tags but also want to verify that the named object really
exists, "$userstring^{object}" now provides a way.
And what do you have against test suites? :-)
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@...m.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists