Re: [PATCH 20/30] subtree: use "^{commit}" instead of "^0"
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <hidden>
Date: 2021-04-26 08:43:18
On Fri, Apr 23 2021, Luke Shumaker wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Luke Shumaker <redacted> They are synonyms. Both are used in the file. ^{commit} is clearer, so "standardize" on that. Signed-off-by: Luke Shumaker <redacted> --- contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh b/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh index 9d365c9f2f..d200fbfed7 100755 --- a/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh +++ b/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh@@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ find_latest_squash () { main="$b" ;; git-subtree-split:) - sub="$(git rev-parse "$b^0")" || + sub="$(git rev-parse "$b^{commit}")" || die "could not rev-parse split hash $b from commit $sq" ;; END)@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ find_existing_splits () { main="$b" ;; git-subtree-split:) - sub="$(git rev-parse "$b^0")" || + sub="$(git rev-parse "$b^{commit}")" || die "could not rev-parse split hash $b from commit $sq" ;; END)
Not a new problem, but those error messages seem weird/bad, isn't that message originally from find_existing_splits() and copied over to find_latest_squash() where talking about "split hash" doesn't make sense? I'd expect something like "could not peel $b to commit" as the error for both.