Re: [PATCH] completion: complete paths for git send-email
Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.git,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"D. Ben Knoble" <[email protected]> writes: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 9:45 AM Yury Norov (NVIDIA) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> From: Yury Norov <[email protected]> >> >> git send-email accepts either revisions or paths to patch files, but its >> Bash completion only offers revisions. This prevents patch files from >> being completed. It can also make a prefix such as "0" expand to an >> unrelated hexadecimal ref even when matching 0001-*.patch files exist. >> >> In my Linux tree, an attempt to autocomplete the standard-named patch >> brings a random hashtag: > > It is unusual to call this a "hashtag." Perhaps "hash" or "object > name" (or id) based on the glossary and datamodel docs? Very good point, but I am not sure if the author truly meant object names here. The reproduction test uses a long hexadecimal string, but that is not an object name; it is an unusual-looking tag name. It is like naming a topic branch '012345' and complaining that: $ git send-email 0<TAB> completes the input to the branch name while ignoring the 0001-changes.patch file. When you have a branch named '0-tolerance-policy' and: $ git send-email 0<TAB> completes to that branch name, you would not dream of complaining about the completion. IOW, I think the complaint is somewhat unfair to begin with. Actually, I do not know if the completion script really expands an abbreviated object name to a full one. I tried: $ git rev-parse seen^2 179eccf0d01729c19a3238905b951b1880aa4ba1 $ git checkout master $ . contrib/completion/git-completion.bash $ git send-email 17<TAB> and waited for some time, but it did not complete to anything. In any case, when both a '0001-my-changes.patch' file and a '0-tolerance-policy' branch exist in your repository and current working directory, running: $ git send-email 0<TAB> should offer both as candidates, I thihk. Since I only ever pass filenames to the command, I personally do not think it is a huge loss if the completion script stops looking at refs and sticks to filenames only, but others may have a use for that feature.