Hi, On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > P.S.: Perhaps you should just stop worrying and learn to love --reverse > > ;-) > > Another thing to think about is how --reverse should interact > with --max-count and --skip (and perhaps --max-age but I am not > sure about that one). > > I think there are two very valid ways. You determine what you > would spit out as if there is no --reverse, and then reverse the > result, or you do not limit with them to get everthing, reverse > the result and do the counting limit on that reversed list. Evidently, I did not even think about the latter. And I guess that most people expect the former, too. (Maybe we should make it a flipflop, so that "--reverse --reverse" unsets the reverse flag again? > I do not think you would need to artificially make it limited like your > patch does if you go this route Why? To see the last commit (which should be output first), I _have_ to traverse them first, before reversing the order. I thought revs->limited does exactly that -- traverse all commits first. Am I mistaken? 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