Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > Wouldn't that effectively change semantics though? If the user passes > `git rev-list --no-walk=unsorted --no-walk`, then the result is a sorted > revwalk right now. One may argue that most likely, nobody is doing that, > but you never really know. True. > An easier approach which keeps existing semantics is to just make > `--no-walk` and `--unsorted-input` mutually exclusive: > > - If the `unsorted_input` bit is set and `no_walk` isn't, and we > observe any `--no-walk` option, then we bail. > > - Likewise, if the `no_walk` bit is set, then we bail when we see > `--unsorted-input` regardless of the value of `unsorted_input`. > This would keep current semantics of `--no-walk`, but prohobit > using it together with the new option. True again. As I said, I do prefer going in the "start tight to forbid combination" route. But as I pointed out, the coverage by the posted patch seemed to have gap(s). Thanks.
