On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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).
Good to know. I will find some time to look at rev_cmdline_info and patch
> 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?
It does sound so familiar that I am intended to claim that you remember
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