Matthew DeVore <matvore@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> When I tried to figure out what "prune" and "prune_data" ("data" is
> quite vague, so these two fields read like "prune_1" and "prune_2")
> referred to in "revision.h",...
It was unfortunate that 8efdc326 ("rev-lib: Make it easy to do
rename tracking (take 2)", 2006-03-10) had to rename "paths" to
"prune_data" when attempting to generalize the history
simplification mechanism by introducing "prune_fn", which can be
used instead of a fixed function, and as one half of the pair, "data
used by the prune function" made some sense.
When we partially reverted that over-generalization with 53b2c823
("revision walker: mini clean-up", 2007-11-05), we probably should
have changed the prune_data back to paths, but we didn't. Worse
yet, when we made prune_data from a void pointer to struct pathspec
at afe069d1 ("struct rev_info: convert prune_data to struct
pathspec", 2010-12-17), we really should have renamed it back to
paths, but we didn't.
So I think it is a good idea to get rid of prune_data and make it
clear it is no longer a generic thing but cannot be anything but a
pathspec. I am not sure what the bit should be called, though. It
is a bit to enable any history simplification and not limited to
pathspec limiting (e.g. simplify-by-decoration enables it, too).
