On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> So I did poke around a little. I think I missed this out on the >> original commit (b7cc53e92c806b73e14b03f60c17b7c29e52b4a4). >> >> diff --git a/builtin/tag.c b/builtin/tag.c >> index 977a18c..2c5a9f1 100644 >> --- a/builtin/tag.c >> +++ b/builtin/tag.c >> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ static int list_tags(struct ref_filter *filter, >> struct ref_sorting *sorting) >> format = "%(refname:short)"; >> >> verify_ref_format(format); >> + filter->with_commit_tag_algo = 1; >> filter_refs(&array, filter, FILTER_REFS_TAGS); >> ref_array_sort(sorting, &array); >> ... >> >> Could you Squash that in, Junio? > > Do we have two implementations that are supposed to compute the same > thing, and with the bit set to 1, the faster of these two is used? > Is there a reason somebody may want to use the slower one? What > difference other than performance does the choice of this bit makes, > and why? > > I think the answers to the above questions deserve to be in the log > message (no, I do not think I can "squash it in", rewriting the > commit that has already been merged to 'next' and 'master'). > > Thanks. I'll resend the patch then with the changed commit message. Thanks. -- Regards, Karthik Nayak -- 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