Re: [PATCH 1/3] fast-export: improve argument parsing

2013-05-09 Thread Junio C Hamano
Felipe Contreras writes: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> That is the kind of thing that needs to be said, not in the >> discussion but in the history, either in the log or in a new test, >> or both. > > If only I had known that when I wrote the commit message. T

Re: [PATCH 1/3] fast-export: improve argument parsing

2013-05-09 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Felipe Contreras writes: >>> We don't want to pass arguments specific to fast-export to setup_revisions. >>> >>> Interesting. What bad thing

Re: [PATCH 1/3] fast-export: improve argument parsing

2013-05-09 Thread Junio C Hamano
Felipe Contreras writes: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Felipe Contreras writes: >> >>> We don't want to pass arguments specific to fast-export to >>> setup_revisions. >> >> Interesting. What bad things happen with the current order? >> >> Does "fast-export --export

Re: [PATCH 1/3] fast-export: improve argument parsing

2013-05-09 Thread Felipe Contreras
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> We don't want to pass arguments specific to fast-export to >> setup_revisions. > > Interesting. What bad things happen with the current order? > > Does "fast-export --export-marks=foo" causes setup_revisions()

Re: [PATCH 1/3] fast-export: improve argument parsing

2013-05-09 Thread Junio C Hamano
Felipe Contreras writes: > We don't want to pass arguments specific to fast-export to > setup_revisions. Interesting. What bad things happen with the current order? Does "fast-export --export-marks=foo" causes setup_revisions() to mistakenly eat --export-marks=foo and barf? > > Signed-off-by: