Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > If you changed your stance on the patch Sverre and I sent to fix this, we > could get a non-partial fix for this.
This is long time ago so I may be misremembering the details, but I thought the original patch was (ab)using object flags to mark "this was explicitly asked for, even though some other range operation may have marked it uninteresting". Because it predated the introduction of the rev_cmdline_info mechanism to record what was mentioned on the command line separately from what objects are uninteresting (i.e. object flags), it may have been one convenient way to record this information, but it still looked unnecessarily ugly hack to me, in that it allocated scarce object flag bits to represent a narrow special case (iirc, only a freestanding "A" on the command line but not "A" spelled in "B..A", or something), making it more expensive to record other kinds of command line information in a way consistent with the approach chosen (we do not want to waste object flag bits in order to record "this was right hand side tip of the symmetric difference range" and such). If you are calling "do not waste object flags to represent one special case among endless number of possibilities, as it will make it impossible to extend it" my stance, that hasn't changed. We added rev_cmdline_info since then so that we can tell what refs were given from the command line in what way, and I thought that we applied a patch from Sverre that uses it instead of the object flags. Am I misremembering things? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html