René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> writes:
>>>> This preexisting feature is curious. It's even documented ('An
>>>> empty file name, "", will clear the list of revs from previously
>>>> processed files.') and covered by t8013.6. Why would we need
>>>> such magic in addition to the standard negation
>>>> (--no-ignore-revs-file) for clearing the list? The latter
>>>> counters blame.ignoreRevsFile as well. *puzzled*
>>>
>>> I shared the puzzlement when I saw it, but ditto.
>>
>> I don't recall exactly. Someone on the list might have wanted to
>> both counter the blame.ignoreRevsFile and specify another file. Or
>> maybe they just wanted to counter the ignoreRevsFile, and I didn't
>> know that --no- would already do that. I'm certainly not wed to it.
>
> The first step would be to show a deprecation warning, wait a few
> releases and then remove that feature. Not sure the effort and
> potential user irritation is worth the saved conditional, doc lines
> and test. (We already established that I'm lazy.)
I do not particularly see the need to. Perhaps when somebody
complains the next time?
> Anyway, here's the patch:
> ---
> blame.c | 2 +-
> blame.h | 5 +++--
> builtin/blame.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
> object.h | 3 ++-
> 4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Looks OK to me from a quick scan.
