Jakub Narebski wrote:
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.
But this does the exact opposite. The condition will now be true if the
'who' variable holds a pointer to a string that is either "tagger" or
"committer", whereas it used to be true for strings that were anything
*but* any of those.
"Compare" (as in "strcmp") also translates to "are equal to" and isn't
only a verb. This is unfortunate for people who aren't natively english
and has had me confused on many a long night. I once ended up doing a
macro called "string_matches" just to wrap my head around an insanely
long conditional with too many strcmp() with about half of them negated
by !.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
-
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