On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> I am clueless about the "limited = (list && list->next)" part,
> but there is only one commit involved hence the test is false
> with my testcase "git-rev-list --objects v1.0.0^0..v1.0.0"; I
> think the old code said dotdot is a limited case.
dotdot should insert _two_ commits onto the list - the positive and
the negative one. Doesn't it?
So the
if (list && list->next)
check should be correct. If we have just one entry, there's no reason to
do everything up-front, we can just run with it (and get the nice
streaming behaviour).
> -static struct object_list *pending_objects = NULL;
> -
> - for (pending = pending_objects; pending; pending = pending->next) {
> + for (pending = revs.pending_objects; pending; pending = pending->next) {
But this part is obviously correct. I already sent out the same patch a
minute ago ;)
> - if (revs.max_age || revs.min_age)
> + if (revs.max_age != -1 || revs.min_age != -1)
As is this. I for a while had zero meaning "no age", and I actually think
it probably should be that way, but then we'd have to switch the
date-related functions around, which is why I decided not to do it after
all (but missed this one that I had already written for that case).
Linus
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html