Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > >> > If the tag is an older-style annotated tag with no tagger date, > >> > we assume a date stamp of 1 second after the UNIX epoch. > >> > >> This patch doesn't seem to actually set this, but as a minor nit: the > >> '1 second' contradicts the 0 mentioned in the last patch. > > Surely I can, but I am curious as to the motivation behind '1 second' in > the original patch. If you wanted to give these '1 second' ones slight > preference over the ones with 'date stamp at the UNIX epoch', that logic > is not there anymore in the re-rolled series, no? The 1-second in the original patch had nothing to do about giving one tag an edge over another tag. The meaning of date in the original patch was: date = 0: we haven't yet looked up the date date = 1: we looked it up, but there is no tagger present date > 0: "valid" date, we can sort with it So date = 1 was just about getting ourselves out of the !date case so that we didn't keep parsing a tag which has no tagger field present. In the new version this is handled by the standard parsed field of struct object. So I didn't need to overload the meaning of the date field anymore. Make sense? -- Shawn. -- 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