Re: [ANNOUNCE] Cogito-0.12

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Jul 7, 2005, 19:57 UTC
Message-ID: <7vbr5ejso2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507071158220.3293@g5.osdl.org>

I have two questions on "rev-list --objects".

(1) Would it make sense to have an extra flag to "rev-list
    --objects" to make it list all the objects reachable from
    commits listed in its output, even when some of them are
    unchanged from UNINTERESTING commits?  Right now, a pack
    produced from "rev-list --objects A ^B" does not have enough
    information to reproduce the tree associated with commit A.

(2) When "showing --objects", it lists the top-level tree node
    with no name, which makes it indistinguishable from commit
    objects by pack-objects, probably impacting the delta logic.
    Would something like the following patch make sense, to name
    such node "."; giving full-path not just the basename to
    all named nodes would be even better, though.

--- # - master: git-format-patch: Prepare patches for e-mail submission. # + (working tree)

diff --git a/rev-list.c b/rev-list.c
--- a/rev-list.c
+++ b/rev-list.c
@@ -179,7 +179,10 @@ static void show_commit_list(struct comm
 		die("unknown pending object %s (%s)", sha1_to_hex(obj->sha1), name);
 	}
 	while (objects) {
-		printf("%s %s\n", sha1_to_hex(objects->item->sha1), objects->name);
+		const char *name = objects->name;
+		if (!*name && objects->item->type == tree_type)
+			name = ".";
+		printf("%s %s\n", sha1_to_hex(objects->item->sha1), name);
 		objects = objects->next;
 	}
 }