Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The comment is misleading because the patch not only moves stuff around, > it also removes setting of revs->limited when revs->min_age has been > set. You are correct that the patch does more than it claims to. That is an independent fix mentioned in my earlier message <7vr74jxhp3.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. We did not have to pay the overhead of having to call limit_list() when only min_age was specified because we did not do traversal filtering using UNINTERESTING logic for min_age, but we called it anyway. Unlike --max-age that marks an old one _and_ its parents uninteresting, it needs to filter a young one without making its parents uninteresting. - : 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