Re: [PATCH] completion: complete paths for git send-email
Ben Knoble <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.git,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> Le 21 juil. 2026 à 15:22, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Yury Norov <[email protected]> writes: > >>> 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. >> Agree. The test should create a file 0001.patch, then a tag >> 0-tag, then a branch 0-branch, maybe something else that is >> relevant; and then make sure every option is correctly offered >> by autocompletion. >> Guys please let me know if everything else is needed before I send v2. > > So in short, we want the problem description updated to something > like: > > When branches and tags whose names share the same prefix as a > file (or a directory???) that stores a patch exist, the attempt > to complete that shared prefix > > $ git send-email that-shared-prefix<TAB> > > should offer both branches, tags, and files (and directories???). > But the completion only offers branches and tags and fails to > offer files. > > And the description of the solution would follow after that in the > proposed log message. > > As to the tests, using 40-hex is misleading, and 0-branch as you > said would be sufficient to reproduce and demonstrate the issue, and > that your code change fixes it. > > Ben, anything I missed? > > Thanks. Not from my end, though SZEDER’s review merits some thinking. Traveling the next week+; replies may be slower (than usual, hah).