Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2010, #04; Wed, 23)

From: Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:43:45 +0200

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 24.06.2010 00:09:
> 
> * mg/rev-parse-lrbranches-locals (2010-05-14) 1 commit
>  - revlist: Introduce --lrbranches and --locals revision specifiers
>  (this branch uses mg/rev-parse-option-sifter-deprecation.)
> 
> I am reluctant to merge a patch that introduces an unpronounceable
> option.

While I could tell you how to pronounce it, I actually was about to
suggest dropping this patch! I don't like the name lrbranches, we have
two names (heads/branches) for local branch heads already, and couldn't
come up with a better name, available name meaning "all branch heads".

> 
> * mg/rev-parse-option-sifter-deprecation (2010-05-14) 3 commits
>  - t6018: make sure all tested symbolic names are different revs
>  - t6018: add tests for rev-list's --branches and --tags
>  - rev-parse: deprecate use as an option sifter
>  (this branch is used by mg/rev-parse-lrbranches-locals.)
> 
> I don't think these patches help anything.  Opinions?

They helped the patch which is going to get dropped...

Besides that: The two test patches improve the tests. t6018 gives the
impression to test something which it doesn't (because some symbolic
names point to the same rev, so it doesn't test whether rev-parse really
resolves all of them), and was lacking coverage for --branches and
--tags. So I think those two are independent improvements.

About the "deprecation/discouragement notice" for rev-parse I don't
know. rev-parse is not completely in sync with all rev-list options, and
doesn't mean to be if I understood correctly. I know that now. As long
as nobody cares, nobody cares...

Cheers,
Michael