On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 02:32:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Mark Mentovai <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > `realpath` is a library interface that transforms paths to those > > having the semantics at issue, but it's somewhat obscure, and easily > > confused with "real path" whose meaning would be entirely > > ambiguous. realpath(3) documentation from POSIX[4] explains the > > semantics fully; glibc[5], and Linux man-pages[6] provide full > > explanation while also using the term "canonicalize". > > > > "Canonicalize" alone is too generic, because there are several axes of > > Yes. You need to specify what you are canonicalizing to, and once > you are going to do so, there is no need for that heavy verb, i.e. > you do not need to say "canonicalize it to realpath"---you say "turn > it into realpath" and you convey what you want to say just fine. > > > All of this illustrates the difficulty in choosing a single term to > > unambiguously convey the meaning. I chose to write a commit message > > that favored technical precision, even if it meant tending toward what > > Junio called "the more verbose and repetitive side". I believed that > > to be necessary to fully explain the background, the problem, and the > > solution. > > Yup, that is why I said I thought your original was clear enough. > > I am tempted to say that we take what we have from you and merge it > down. > Thanks for the long explanations. I still stumble across the headline: t: run tests from a normalized working directory Re-reading the help for realpath() and pwd, would this makes sense: t: run tests from an absolute pathname
