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 1460C1F66E for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:52:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728683AbgHUQwP (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:52:15 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:50957 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728338AbgHUQTz (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:19:55 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393DB7A235; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:19:51 -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; s=sasl; bh=BezUXU+ia+IqTjTkPIvYbxqlrT8=; b=f/4WoK My5moUHR4liTXhbHxpG9le4sZYbKKahwJODTn0ApPAMX1Gc0p2M1WBIj3xn47IZF zADioDna/EQYexHSc8Qj9E950rv4FlAB2SfTqMbS8zGJwkUsK0wP+nwwpzKJICoP rbiB1NEPsUGfV9BCaEaTIch3xw2yp/zT5WWKM= 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; q=dns; s=sasl; b=W2fXUvgNLsHaLeIcch+lkwUs/9SkqXYJ ssnytGMgsIJGzxZn5uFR8i1bNCRPp4nKDYUAvXfogMibg1dwBvpraXlswaZaDUaT t8/y2+wsBqIcqNWyU2Er1iZa+BjanYLiYrlV6DZwEgWVHjeOQIHPY1VmCDJZlwxt ZLLfPoImK4U= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F4F7A233; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:19:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (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 919A97A232; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:19:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Jacob Keller , Jacob Keller , Git mailing list Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] refspec: add support for negative refspecs References: <20200815002509.2467645-1-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> <20200815002509.2467645-3-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> <20200818174116.GA2473110@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200821023335.GA3124022@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:19:50 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200821023335.GA3124022@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:33:35 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 23773950-E3CA-11EA-A279-01D9BED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > Yes, I'd agree we should be applying the negative refspecs first, and > then de-duping / looking for collisions. Which I think is what the patch > is doing currently. Good to see that we thought this through. The reasoning deserves to be recorded somewhere (perhaps a comment just before making the call to apply the negative refspec). Thanks.