On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 06:00:04PM -0600, Bill Lear wrote: > > > Ok, thank you. I will try this out and keep this in mind as I test > > out the patch Johannes posted. > > This is, btw, completely different than what Johannes posted. His patch > shows you the date of the _tip_ of each of the branches. My script shows > the _oldest_ reflog for the branch. So it depends on whether you want > them in order of "last worked on" or "created" (you said "created", but > I wonder if "last worked on" is actually more useful). I think "last worked on" is the only thing that makes sense. Anything else is completely ambigous, especially in the presence of forks and merges. And eventually all reflogs will have about the same age when they extend past the expiration period, at which point the "oldest reflog" is not meaningful anymore. However Johannes' patch uses the author date for sorting. I think branches really should be sorted by committer's date though. The committer's date is a much better indicator of when a given branch has been updated while the author's date might be any time in the past. Nicolas - 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