From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Lose perl dependency. (fwd) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:35:13 -0800 Message-ID: <7vvej2bkn2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <45AF5F83.6090207@fs.ei.tum.de> <7vps9ag58g.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jan 20 01:35:26 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H84CX-0006u4-7t for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:35:21 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965011AbXATAfQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:35:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965023AbXATAfQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:35:16 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao05.cox.net ([68.230.241.34]:36326 "EHLO fed1rmmtao05.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965011AbXATAfP (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:35:15 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20070120003514.RJYK15640.fed1rmmtao05.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:35:14 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id DCbX1W00m1kojtg0000000; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:35:32 -0500 To: Johannes Schindelin In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Sat, 20 Jan 2007 00:54:49 +0100 (CET)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: >> I think this is sane but I hate to having to worry about >> possible fallouts from giving --reverse in setup_revisions() to >> make it available to everybody. E.g. things like "what happens >> when you say "git format-patch --reverse HEAD~3". > > It would > > 1) traverse all commits, storing them in a commit_list, > 2) reverse the commits, and then > 3) continue as before. > > So I don't really see a problem (after all, you don't have to use it if > you don't want to). Well, I understand what the code does, but what does the above three steps MEAN to the end users? In other words, if it does not make sense for format-patch to take --reverse, maybe we should keep it as an internal option, just like git-show is the only user of no-walk. And give option parsing for it for only selected commands (like rev-list) where it makes sense. I am sure you can come up with a reason why the above three steps are useful for the end user, and it could turn out to be a very valid reason. But format-patch was just one example. I will have to worry about all the users of revision traversal machinery. The end result might be "ok, we have spent quite a lot of time and audited every users of revision machinery and for all of them --reverse has some valid use cases." and that would be wonderful. But the thing is, I hate to having to worry about that right now.