Re: breakage in revision traversal with pathspec

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 25, 2013, 09:12 UTC
Message-ID: <20130925091259.GA5844@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqeh8jqt38.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:51:55AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > My original question was going to be: why bother peeling at all if we
> > are just going to push the outer objects, anyway?
> >
> > And after staring at it, I somehow convinced myself that the answer was
> > that you were pushing both. But that is not the case. Sorry for the
> > noise.
> 
> But that is still a valid point, and the patch to avoid peeling for
> non symmetric diff does not look too bad, either.
> 
>  revision.c               | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh |  8 +++++++
>  2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

FWIW, the flow of this version makes more sense to me. It also allows things like:

  git rev-list --objects $blob..$tree

which I cannot see anybody actually wanting, but it somehow seems simpler to me to say "A..B" is syntactic sugar for "^B A", without qualifying "except that A and B must be commit-ishes".

-Peff