On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:38 PM Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> + * mechanism to allow and disallow some sets of options for
> >> + * different commands (like rev-list, replay, etc). Such
> >> + * mechanism should do an early parsing of option and be able
> >> + * to manage the `--exclude-promisor-objects` and `--missing=...`
> >> + * options below.
> >> + */
> >> for (i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
> >> const char *arg = argv[i];
> >> if (!strcmp(arg, "--exclude-promisor-objects")) {
> >> @@ -753,8 +762,12 @@ int cmd_rev_list(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >>
> >> if (arg_print_omitted)
> >> oidset_init(&omitted_objects, DEFAULT_OIDSET_SIZE);
> >> - if (arg_missing_action == MA_PRINT)
> >> + if (arg_missing_action == MA_PRINT) {
> >> oidset_init(&missing_objects, DEFAULT_OIDSET_SIZE);
> >> + /* Already add missing tips */
> >> + oidset_insert_from_set(&missing_objects, &revs.missing_commits);
> >> + oidset_clear(&revs.missing_commits);
> >> + }
> >
> > It is unclear what "already" here refers to, at least to me.
I wanted to hint that we already have some missing objects that we can
add to the set. But it's not an important detail and I agree it can be
confusing.
> It's grammatically correct but perhaps a bit "over eager" (gives the
> impression that we get these missing tips all the time and is a common
> "happy" path). I do still think my earlier v1 comments
>
> Did you mean "Add already-missing commits"? Perhaps even more explicit
> would be "Add missing tips"?
"Add missing tips" is used in the V3 I just sent. Thanks.
> are relevant here.
