Jeff King <p...@peff.net> 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. Thanks. -- 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
