From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SZEDER =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2013, #03; Thu, 6) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 20:55:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20130607185537.GC25731@goldbirke> References: <7vzjv2x3p7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130607000006.GA25731@goldbirke> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Ramkumar Ramachandra X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 07 20:55:46 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 1Ul1pA-0002bu-IU for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:55:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757035Ab3FGSzk convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jun 2013 14:55:40 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:53023 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756691Ab3FGSzj (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jun 2013 14:55:39 -0400 Received: from localhost6.localdomain6 (g228010151.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.228.10.151]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M8QOg-1UOhml20vK-00vxzv; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:55:37 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:aJp0Gt9Iprlp2HOr9o4KfJo30SCC8UNlipmW4466+lC zajLhJptcwysdjS/pYofnRkB5VMYGIyBXPKg2Fuze/QYFq+Wh4 rcsm/x7RRnOVR0HIdKR1RveXEorrJBdDDjAIPzDYMe3oEMfx7w xrwuOX9jPRtp83RjnZ9bqzMetxQRqpc1JBADkbpC2uo8wFfzUB 9k7dUU9P2aJWnZcjsn5NmuOnTOmH0Lb66jetMXMUv1vTykeIK4 ptC8Q+Mks9RQr4YFbSYdYwRwf5vNyD+3T3/1eh6g99ea9/Cima XInWnq++6+IANTAk+nk7LqiMR2ausbX23B6QKO5U7N94Sjj9HB BSaZdVDIvBya/+FLsWYgM7RcexTkHSS5fDdmZZYpX Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 11:00:14PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > SZEDER G=E1bor wrote: > > the one at the top because > > of the reasons given in $gmane/226272 >=20 > Sorry about the delay: I went to sleep for a couple of days :P >=20 > > 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). >=20 > 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" ;)