On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 07:46:43PM +0000, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 02:11:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > believe the proper way to do that is to help git-log knowing which are > > the short (topic) branches, and to crawl incrementally using a > > date-based hack. This would basically work a bit like this. Let's > > imaging you want to crawl "next" in git and know which topics from pu > > are in it. You would say e.g.: > > Hmm. Why a date-based hack to see what's on the topic branch? Why not > just give an option to walk the graph twice, it serves the purpose to not walk the graph twice actually, but indeed twice is not _that_ bad. > giving name-rev style annotations, and just let it be slow. People > will mostly look at it by specifying just their topic branches anyway. > IOW: > > git log ^origin/master my/topic1 my/topic2 my/topic3 > > and by virtue of the fact that you are vastly limiting the size of the > tree, it won't actually end up too slow. So you haven't said so much > "these are my topic branches" as "I am just not interested in things > that are already upstream." Well, I was just thinking quickly during jetlag-induced insomnia. I don't really care about the issue that much actually. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpFMcWrnACUo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
