Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
However, with the ordering change, there is a technically a regression
in one case: a random file "foo" next to a repo "foo.git". Saying "git
ls-remote foo" used to prefer "foo.git", and will now select the file
"foo" only to fail.
Yeah, very true X-<.
Thanks for noticing. I saw this issue when I was writing the original
version of the patch, and meant to revisit it and at least document it
in the commit message, but I ended up forgetting.
No, thanks for working on this.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 09:38:13AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
However, with the ordering change, there is a technically a regression
in one case: a random file "foo" next to a repo "foo.git". Saying "git
ls-remote foo" used to prefer "foo.git", and will now select the file
"foo" only to fail.
Yeah, very true X-<.
quoted
Thanks for noticing. I saw this issue when I was writing the original
version of the patch, and meant to revisit it and at least document it
in the commit message, but I ended up forgetting.
No, thanks for working on this.
What do you want to do with it, then? Take my patch and ignore the
gitfile issue, or have me refactor it more heavily? I could go either
way.
-Peff