On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:51:55AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> > My original question was going to be: why bother peeling at all if we
> > are just going to push the outer objects, anyway?
> > And after staring at it, I somehow convinced myself that the answer was
> > that you were pushing both. But that is not the case. Sorry for the
> > noise.
> But that is still a valid point, and the patch to avoid peeling for
> non symmetric diff does not look too bad, either.
> revision.c | 59
> t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh | 8 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
FWIW, the flow of this version makes more sense to me. It also allows
git rev-list --objects $blob..$tree
which I cannot see anybody actually wanting, but it somehow seems
simpler to me to say "A..B" is syntactic sugar for "^B A", without
qualifying "except that A and B must be commit-ishes".
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