On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 11:00:14PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > the one at the top because > > of the reasons given in $gmane/226272 > > Sorry about the delay: I went to sleep for a couple of days :P > > > 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). > > 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" ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
