From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 3/7] show: honor --textconv for blobs Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 02:25:05 +0200 Message-ID: <20130511002504.GA4849@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vy5c1l6nb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vy5bm22f8.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130510173434.GA3154@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vfvxu1zla.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Michael J Gruber , git@vger.kernel.org, Matthieu Moy To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 11 02:25:34 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Uaxcz-0004vD-GM for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 11 May 2013 02:25:33 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753625Ab3EKAZK (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2013 20:25:10 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:52484 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753356Ab3EKAZK (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2013 20:25:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 26317 invoked by uid 102); 11 May 2013 00:25:33 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (213.221.117.228) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 10 May 2013 19:25:33 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 11 May 2013 02:25:05 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vfvxu1zla.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:04:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > One thing to notice is that those accessing rev->pending before > calling prepare_revision_walk(), as opposed to those receiving > objects in rev->commits via get_revision(), are the only ones that > care about the context and wants to act differently depending on > where these came from and how they were specified. > > That suggests at least two possibilities to me: > > - Perhaps we can place the context in rev->pending and clear them > when prepare_revision_walk() moves them to rev->commits, without > introducing rev->keep_object_context? > > - Perhaps instead of extending object-array, we can move this kind > of information to rev_cmdline and enrich that structure? Without looking too closely to see whether it is feasible, I would think the latter would end up being much more elegant, since I think it already deals with some allocation issues already. -Peff