Hi,
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > However, once the reflog traversal hits the oldest reflog entry, it
> > reverts to commit parent traversal.
>
> That doesn't make sense...
>
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > > I couldn't make heads or tails out of the patch and did not understand
> > > what it was trying to do. It looked as if you were making the log
> > > traversal machinery to walk _both_ reflog (probably from the latest to
> > > older) and the usual ancestry.
> >
> > Yes, first reflog, then usual ancestry.
> >
> > Would you want that changed to _only_ reflog traversal?
>
> Yes. The old ancestry has nothing to do with my local reflog. I
> want to know where my reflog ends, as there's no record of that
> branch's lifespan before that point.
>
> Right now I have a reflog on `pu` which I've had since reflogs were
> first introduced last summer. Yet it only goes back to Dec 23, 2006.
> Looking at the old ancestry of pu back into last Oct isn't really
> interesting when I'm studying what changes happened to locally.
Fair enough. It actually simplifies the patch. And if you want to dig on,
you can just "git log pu@{whatever}", right?
So, is this wanted? (If not, I'd rather spend my time on my day job...)
Ciao,
Dscho
-
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