Re: [PATCH v7 13/17] ref-filter: add `:dir` and `:base` options for ref printing atoms

Jacob Keller [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

quoted

to get remotes from /refs/foo/abc/xyz we'd need to do
strip=1,strip=-1, which could be
done but ...

... would be unnecessary if this is the only use case:

quoted

strbuf_addf(&fmt,
"%%(if:notequals=remotes)%%(refname:base)%%(then)%s%%(else)%s%%(end)",
local.buf, remote.buf);

You can "strip to leave only 2 components" and compare the result
with refs/remotes instead, no?

Of course, my only objective was that someone would find it useful to
have these two additional
atoms. So if you think it's unnecessary we could drop it entirely :D

--
Regards,
Karthik Nayak

I think having strip and rstrip make sense, (along with support for
negative numbers) I don't think we need to make them work together
unless someone is interested, since we can use strip=-2 to get the
behavior we need today.

I am OK with multiple strips Karthik suggests, e.g.

    %(refname:strip=1,rstrip=-1)

if it is cleanly implemented.

I have a bit of trouble with these names, though.  If we call one
strip and the other rstrip, to only those who know about rstrip it
would be clear that strip is about stripping from the left.  Perhaps
we should call it lstrip for symmetry and ease-of-remembering?

    refs/heads/master:lstrip=-1 => master (strip all but one level
    from the left)

    refs/heads/master:rstrip=-2 => refs/heads (strip all but two
    levels from the right)

    refs/heads/master:lstrip=1,rstrip=-1 => heads (strip one level
    from the left and then strip all but one level from the right)

I dunno.