On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted text
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html