Junio C Hamano wrote: > [PATCH] for-each-ref: epoch and epochdate > > This adds "epoch" (which is parallel to "tagger" or "committer") > and "epochdate" (corresponds to "taggerdate" and > "committerdate"). > > As other "date" fields, "epochdate" sorts numerically > and displays human readably I was thinking about having only "epochdate" (corresponding to either "taggerdate" or "committerdate"), only named "epoch". There is I think no need for field which would be "tagger" or "committer", and especially not named "epoch" ;-). Otherwise looks fine, thanks a lot. BTW. I had to translate + if (strcmp(who, "tagger") && strcmp(who, "committer")) to + if (strcmp(who, "tagger") == 0 || strcmp(who, "committer") == 0) to understand it. But this is probably my lack of contact with such C idioms. -- Jakub Narebski Poland - 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