Re: git and time

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> 
>> However, I think the traditional "find the closest ancestor"
>> behaviour and ref-log behaviour are mutually incompatible, while
>> they both return information to help address similar issues to
>> the end user when viewed at a very high level.
>> 
>> Especially, "find the closest ancestor" behaviour means when you
>> get "tag-gXXXX" as an answer, the tag proper does _not_ contain
>> the given commit (e.g. commit v1.4.2-g4839bd8 is not part of
>> v1.4.2).
>
> Correct.
>
> But that just means that we should take the _next_ one in the time-ordered 
> list, no?

I do not think so.

Extending the example (sorry for doing the same topic on two
separate threads) I just gave Jeff on "fix based on v0.99",
after finding that the fix is based on v0.99, finding another
commit that immediately followed the v0.99 commit on my master
branch does not help finding out that I very recently merged the
fix in at all.  I think we cannot get away without honestly
doing the first descendant, which is unfortunately a lot more
expensive.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]