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-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9090B20248 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2019 10:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726127AbfDNKYS (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Apr 2019 06:24:18 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com ([209.85.128.66]:36485 "EHLO mail-wm1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725829AbfDNKYS (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Apr 2019 06:24:18 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id h18so16361864wml.1 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2019 03:24:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=HNfJPMbLi0sy+lIrcdhLbKiEFYkHSZpD2soUQc7N9bo=; b=KJoGLFweT+zszJdDeaQnDJLamBuKLXKXc0X1Oh5O10Hzm8HzQzKXPTHOWV1kzM7Djk QMVvoEOmkYSNQnrvsdPw3miiNC5ur7ZFftYqG/jHDXtsqFxHnwDgjnNSUHBU1ZfFjZKV JAl0H7l7k++GzRTIMF0yp/VVMzEegEXz7y8zAHEpQ9WmMs7GgULiZeec5DTufrYc67yK b63fE0EiUYWw9+DTJXJB0iZhkHI1K8WuhjfYi+ElNiMPhGPdAHaN54R/ZHwaUEFShKl2 p3f+8VhgLUSfW9GFUl68g4XrI9NCrGXpuhYxZBJ6tV/FO8k2Hjzd0etBvw9GxzG02p6f nwIA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=HNfJPMbLi0sy+lIrcdhLbKiEFYkHSZpD2soUQc7N9bo=; b=GFhfjkKlFhM1gYUkbzoargJN4E5a8NR56h1NUpR4xRjDMoS2+wtIeYjFVIedeBnI5J 3VpjYAM/FIKdOlf4imCAq0/JEEwp1QcVlt6cvtXtq1ELBt9tfjy+oXrNT2xVw0WZHRhr Q5UjM9NQae0xwky57Zsukl9vDc4zf85TGO+f0PdcuPVj3I2tdGWaVh1f2/nWSAASAaTA 0liFmmZyIMfkaH/sggzxxWUsJ4lIWtojc/JPI6dTe295lkpro6avcJ3lRMwCJ0rwtEPE tEzkwdJh9RI2OOPOu33sf+VrhOQLbGzSO271n+Oa0hGqiLnxJUzq1QO6EF1xRJk/Zk3Y HeuA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXm5l+z/WHgsbXxLB4iXHpz48Dstvkh16L4qKIe4xl0OtlskeGa IpyhOD37tC6Xv4xuWGY0mss= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy3kF5uAY9vS24f+N4dMeIUkxoL3E1PqWSv3qeMpm8HwzgD0z0v7zeAZ6UCsx6vbOa3wpjprA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2d0e:: with SMTP id t14mr16989586wmt.33.1555237456013; Sun, 14 Apr 2019 03:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (141.255.76.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.76.255.141]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x205sm18007533wmg.9.2019.04.14.03.24.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sun, 14 Apr 2019 03:24:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Michael Platings Cc: Barret Rhoden , Git mailing list , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , David Kastrup , Jeff King , Jeff Smith , Johannes Schindelin , =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe , Stefan Beller Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] blame: add config options to handle output for ignored lines References: <20190410162409.117264-1-brho@google.com> <20190410162409.117264-5-brho@google.com> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 19:24:14 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Michael Platings's message of "Sun, 14 Apr 2019 11:09:55 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Michael Platings writes: > If you only enable blame.markIgnoredLines then the hash for > "unblamable" lines appears as e.g. "*3252488f5" - this doesn't seem > right to me because the commit *wasn't* ignored, I think you misunderstood me. I was merely suggesting to use the approach to mark the line in a way other than using the NULLed out object name that has been reserved for something totally different, and hinting with "the same *idea*". And that idea is not even original to this series; the "^" marker that is used to say "the line is attributed to this commit, but that may only be because you blamed with commit range A..B and we reached the bottom of the range---if you dug further, you might find the line originates from another commit" is the origin of the same idea, and this topic borrows it and uses a different mark, i.e. '*', for the "we are not certain---take this with grain of salt" mark. If you ended up hitting the commit the user wanted to ignore, perhaps you can find another character that is different from '^' or '*' and use that, following the same idea. That is what I meant. So you shouldn't be worried about using the same '*' making the result ambiguous. By the way, a configuration only feature is something we usually do not accept. A feature must be guarded with --command-line-option and then optionally can have a corresponding configuration once the option proves to be useful enough that it becomes useful to be able to say "in this repository (or to this user), the feature is on by default".