From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: breakage in revision traversal with pathspec Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 05:12:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20130925091259.GA5844@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <5230AD23.2050009@bracey.fi> <20130911182444.GD4326@google.com> <5230C6E3.3080406@bracey.fi> <20130920033541.GC15101@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130920051107.GA17609@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Kevin Bracey , Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 25 11:13:10 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 1VOl9g-0000jz-MA for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:13:09 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751944Ab3IYJNE (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 05:13:04 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:35709 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750949Ab3IYJND (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 05:13:03 -0400 Received: (qmail 25513 invoked by uid 102); 25 Sep 2013 09:13:02 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:13:02 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 05:12:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:51:55AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King 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 things like: 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". -Peff