Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I like this idea a lot. I'd actually also like it for commit, although (1)
> and (3a) obviously don't happen there. It would help to combat my tendency
> to forget to push when I mean to.
Thanks.
>> +/*
>> + * We really should allow cb_data... Yuck
>> + */
>> +static const char *branch_name;
>> +static int branch_name_len;
>> +static char *found_remote;
>> +static char *found_merge;
>> +static int read_branch_config(const char *var, const char *value)
>> +{
>
> ...
>
> I think you want branch_get(), which handles all the config file stuff up
> to approximately here:
Fixups are very much welcomed. This was more or less a proof of
concept.
>> + if (show_log) {
>> + const char *args[32];
>> + int ac;
>> +
>> + ac = 0;
>> + args[ac++] = "log";
>> + args[ac++] = "--pretty=oneline";
>> + args[ac++] = "--abbrev-commit";
>> + args[ac++] = "--left-right";
>> + args[ac++] = "--boundary";
>> + args[ac++] = symmetric;
>> + args[ac++] = "--";
>> + args[ac] = NULL;
>> +
>> + run_command_v_opt(args, RUN_GIT_CMD);
>
> We really should be able to do this in-process, although I'm not sure if
> we really can.
The code runs in_merge_bases() twice, between our branch head
and the base, but if we really care about the performance, we
can have a single merge-base traversal and the resulting object
pool will have everything necessary to emit the log output
without a separate traversal.
Because I think that is reasonably easy, I just did not bother
to. This is not a performance critical piece of code anyway.
One thing I thought about was to limit the output to latest N
entries from both sides. That would also be easier to implement
if we do a single merge-base traversal and reuse the result.
-
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
