Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2013, #03; Thu, 6)

["SZEDER Gábor" <szeder@fira.uka.de>]

On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 11:00:14PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I suppose it's always wise to do a bit of history digging before
you go on to remove a function you don't know what it is doing, even
though a simple git log -Sfuncname perhaps doesn't even qualifies for
"digging" ;)