Re: [PATCH] tree_entry_interesting: make recursive mode default
- From
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jan 12, 2012, 05:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8BEGKctdeDsZAyDGfG_JQ96RpTpXFZvJs5M1vKH3w=_WA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v1ur54ikk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
2012/1/12 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:
Show 5 quoted lines
> Thanks, but I am curious about two (and a half) things. > > - The "max_depth" option has perfectly good and natural "invalid" > sentinel values (i.e. 0 or negative). Why do we need a separate > bitfield?
We want infinite recursion by default, by max_depth default value is 0, which is non-recursive.
Show 7 quoted lines
> - Special casing the non-recursive mode of diff-tree is perfectly > acceptable, but nonrecursive_diff_tree does not sound like a very good > name for it for two reasons. Perhaps there may be other users that want > the "surface only" behaviour, so having "diff_tree" in the name limits > its future (re)use. Also an option that is named negatively inevitably > invites "if (!opt->non_whatever)" double negative. Can we come up with > a better name, perhaps "onelevel_only" or something?
I'm bad at naming, any other names are welcome. onelevel_only sounds good.
> - Shouldn't "onelevel_only" be the same as limiting to a single depth > with "max_depth"?
I thought of that but not sure it's equivalent to max_depth == 1 or max_depth == 0, so I separated it for safety and clarity. max_depth feature is driven by git-grep and there were a few interpretations how it should behave last time, so I'm not sure if its behavior may change in future.
-- Duy