On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 04:42:16PM -0800, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 01:22:20PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > The current behavior from "rev-list --count --objects" is nonsensical:
> > we enumerate all of the objects except commits, but then give a count of
> > commits. This wasn't planned, and is just what the code happens to do.
> >
> > Instead, let's give the answer the user almost certainly wanted: the
> > full count of objects.
>
> This makes sense: I've often worried about introducing
> backwards-incompatible changes in newer versions of Git, even for
> behavior that didn't make sense to begin with.
>
> Of course, backwards-incompatible changes *are* something worth worrying
> about, but I don't find that the behavior was sensible to begin with, so
> I don't have a problem "breaking" it if "breaking" means making
> something nonsensical behave correctly.
Yeah, I admit I'm guessing that nobody cares about the current behavior,
or that it was unplanned. But it seems sufficiently insane to me to take
a chance on.
> > + if (revs->count) {
> > + revs->count_right++;
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
>
> Hmm. This puzzled me at first. Do you think that it could benefit from a
> comment?
What would it say (i.e., I'm not sure what confused you)?
-Peff
