SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> the one at the top because
> of the reasons given in $gmane/226272

Sorry about the delay: I went to sleep for a couple of days :P

> the one at the bottom because
> of the misleading commit message (__git_complete_file() always
> completed refs first as part of the ref:file notation, so it worked
> just fine except for the ref1...ref2 notation; the real reason for
> calling __git_complete_revlist_file() for difftool is to make clear
> that difftool takes ref1...ref2:file, too).

How am I (or anyone else) supposed to know the "intended" meaning
__git_complete_file()?  The implementation is just an alias to
__git_complete_revlist_file(), so I looked at the name and guessed
that it was supposed to complete files; now you tell me that it was
intended to complete any revspec except revision ranges (what does
that have to do with "file" again?).  I suppose digging through the
history would've told me, but I really didn't bother for such a
trivial non-functional change.

If you ask me, you should clamp down on spurious completions
everywhere uniformly, if that is what you want (I personally have no
interest in the topic).  I see no reason to keep a badly named
function around.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to