On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> OK, so let's say I agree with you that --unpacked and --since
> are "stop early" rules. I fully agree with that from usability
> and implementation point of view, but I now wonder if the
> "output filter" in get_revision() and "stop early" in limit_list()
> would do the same thing.
They don't.
What ends up not working very well at all is the combination of
"--topo-order" and the output filter in get_revision. It will return NULL
when we see the first commit out of date-order, even if we have other
commits coming.
So we really should do the "past the date order" thing in get_revision()
only if we have _not_ done it already in limit_list().
Something like this.
The easiest way to test this is with just
gitk --since=3.days.ago
on the kernel tree. Without this patch, it tends to be pretty obviously
broken.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>
Linus
---
diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
index a8a54b6..558ed01 100644
--- a/revision.c
+++ b/revision.c
@@ -783,10 +783,14 @@ struct commit *get_revision(struct rev_i
/*
* If we haven't done the list limiting, we need to look at
- * the parents here
+ * the parents here. We also need to do the date-based limiting
+ * that we'd otherwise have done in limit_list().
*/
- if (!revs->limited)
+ if (!revs->limited) {
+ if (revs->max_age != -1 && (commit->date < revs->max_age))
+ continue;
add_parents_to_list(revs, commit, &revs->commits);
+ }
if (commit->object.flags & SHOWN)
continue;
if (!(commit->object.flags & BOUNDARY) &&
@@ -794,8 +798,6 @@ struct commit *get_revision(struct rev_i
continue;
if (revs->min_age != -1 && (commit->date > revs->min_age))
continue;
- if (revs->max_age != -1 && (commit->date < revs->max_age))
- return NULL;
if (revs->no_merges &&
commit->parents && commit->parents->next)
continue;
-
: 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