From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF7A1F4B4 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:55:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390752AbgJLQzD (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:55:03 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:52800 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390705AbgJLQzD (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:55:03 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 922238C03B; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:55:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=oCI23vePdkM7 r7pGlZA5L2W+oCQ=; b=Asf2+RqK+7/NcSqfVV6Wsc4ljg4CsDapXAtGJXXwhmvD 3CMbCUazhsblc+ebrLS+Me+B4pCwN0mZHZmat3LZ20F6xlqZVSe35YIZ8KvsJCpZ ZPgKFkg/Hu8ccpchhXb/ULQCDBY7kmEXFvOfbC65/xPDewiWahDA61IPhgLIcks= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=aBafeM N2FJS0iO/6Ea68fYH0AtilEZ5Cj5m2JEJMgZFX5FyJZrEBP74NuDbSZfXGrBZRYN 1p9Vv0qSSYyHRDxLgLytBU66HgqmVY4HhxjTZLntK3Wb8QtgbNXoikroRHAQOb0X QNHyJq4MQBOFp43B2C7efCyL7Out4wzmbqNNQ= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6670F8C039; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:55:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C66588C038; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:54:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe Cc: Barret Rhoden , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] blame: validate and peel the object names on the ignore list References: <20200925055954.1111389-1-gitster@pobox.com> <20200925055954.1111389-3-gitster@pobox.com> <40488753-c179-4ce2-42d0-e57b5b1ec6cd@web.de> <32370477-c6e4-5378-fedc-c86b9ddf96bd@google.com> <1fa730c4-eaef-2f32-e1b4-716a27ed4646@web.de> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:54:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1fa730c4-eaef-2f32-e1b4-716a27ed4646@web.de> (=?utf-8?Q?=22R?= =?utf-8?Q?en=C3=A9?= Scharfe"'s message of "Sun, 11 Oct 2020 18:03:20 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: AA232694-0CAB-11EB-9984-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Ren=C3=A9 Scharfe 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.