Re: Simplify-by-decoration with decorate-refs-exclude

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 2, 2019, 21:20 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqh86zjmcg.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <5de287e9-a8e8-780a-7d39-2229b61914ca@web.de>

René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:

> Having cmd_log_init_finish() call load_ref_decorations() before
> setup_revisions() would indeed solve the issue as well.  But we need
> to call the latter to check if --pretty=raw was given and avoid loading
> decorations in that case, don't we?

I was thinking about giving an instance of the decoration_filter to either rev_info or setup_revision_opt, and moving the call to load_ref_decorations() and the decision to make that call from cmd_log_init_finish() to setup_revisions().

Show 7 quoted lines

>> Other two callers of load_ref_decorations() are deep inside pretty.c
>> but I wonder in the longer term if we would want to turn them into
>> an "a lot higher level should have already loaded decorations"
>> assert.
>
> This would require that higher level to parse the user format to check
> if %d or %D is present before formatting the first item.  Hmm.

Yes. Don't we pre-scan what kind of formatting primitives are used in the end-user supplied string already to optimize loading of notes and source information?