Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > That turned out to be quite simple (I wasn't sure originally if we'd > actually visit all of the tags, which is why I had conceived of this as > an initial pass; but of course it makes sense that we'd have to see all > of the tags in the existing code). > ... > We could _also_ tweak the merge-weight as Linus's patch did, just > because 10000 has more basis than 65535. But I think it really matters a > lot less at this point.
I agree, but if we were to go this route of keeping track of "some" attribute of the tip the traversal started from, I wonder if it is better to keep the actual tag object, not just its tagger date as an unsigned long, in the new field. That way, a tweak may be able to even use the v:refname comparison if we wanted to do so in the future. It is easy to go from a tag object to its tagger date, but it is impossible to go in the other direction, i.e. given a tagger date to go back to the tag. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
