Jeff King writes:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 01:42:44PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Tan writes:
>>
>> > It could be argued that in the future, Git might need to distinguish
>> > tree_objects from blob_objects - in particular, a user might
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 05:18:36PM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> Whenever tree_objects is set to 1 in revision.h's struct rev_info,
> blob_objects is likewise set, and vice versa. Combine those two fields
> into one.
>
> Some of the existing code does not handle tree_objects being different
>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 01:42:44PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Tan writes:
>
> > It could be argued that in the future, Git might need to distinguish
> > tree_objects from blob_objects - in particular, a user might want
> > rev-list to print the trees but
Jonathan Tan writes:
> It could be argued that in the future, Git might need to distinguish
> tree_objects from blob_objects - in particular, a user might want
> rev-list to print the trees but not the blobs.
That was exactly why these bits were originally made to
Whenever tree_objects is set to 1 in revision.h's struct rev_info,
blob_objects is likewise set, and vice versa. Combine those two fields
into one.
Some of the existing code does not handle tree_objects being different
from blob_objects properly. For example, "handle_commit" in revision.c
5 matches
Mail list logo