Re: [PATCH v5 15/15] fast-export: don't handle uninteresting refs

Hi Junio,

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

If you changed your stance on the patch Sverre and I sent to fix this,
we could get a non-partial fix for this.

This is long time ago so I may be misremembering the details, but I
thought the original patch was (ab)using object flags to mark "this was
explicitly asked for, even though some other range operation may have
marked it uninteresting".  Because it predated the introduction of the
rev_cmdline_info mechanism to record what was mentioned on the command
line separately from what objects are uninteresting (i.e. object flags),
it may have been one convenient way to record this information, but it
still looked unnecessarily ugly hack to me, in that it allocated scarce
object flag bits to represent a narrow special case (iirc, only a
freestanding "A" on the command line but not "A" spelled in "B..A", or
something), making it more expensive to record other kinds of command
line information in a way consistent with the approach chosen (we do not
want to waste object flag bits in order to record "this was right hand
side tip of the symmetric difference range" and such).

Good to know. I will find some time to look at rev_cmdline_info and patch
my patch.

If you are calling "do not waste object flags to represent one
special case among endless number of possibilities, as it will make
it impossible to extend it" my stance, that hasn't changed.

We added rev_cmdline_info since then so that we can tell what refs
were given from the command line in what way, and I thought that we
applied a patch from Sverre that uses it instead of the object
flags.  Am I misremembering things?

It does sound so familiar that I am intended to claim that you remember
things correctly.

Ciao,
Johannes