On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > So we could make a '{ }' in the argument space basically do a SHA1
> > expansion of the range inside, and imply --no-walk. It's _not_ entirely
> > trivial, because we'd need to handle the fact that object flags are
> > sticky, and clear them in between invocations of multiple ranges, but it's
> > not _fundmanetally_ difficult. It's just that somebody would need to do
> > it.
>
> Wouldn't you lose the nice streaming output (iow short latency)?
Oh, absolutely. So the '{x}' format would be not be a replacement for
non-{} format - it would be an addition to.
But it's no different from 'a..b' in that sense: anything that sets
'revs->limited' automatically forces a synchronous revision walk. So you'd
be crazy to do
gitk {HEAD}
because
(a) there would be no point
(b) it indeed loses the streaming data and would become synchronous.
but if you already do
gitk a..b
then you're _already_ doing a revision limiter and forcing the revision
walk to be synchronous, so there would be no interactivity downside
between 'a..b' and '{a..b}'.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
