From: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com
This series adds supports for 'git log --no-walk=unsorted', which
should be useful for the re-roll of my mz/rebase-range series. It also
addresses the bug in cherry-pick/revert, which makes it sort revisions
by date.
On Fri, Aug 10,
y...@google.com writes:
[Administrivia: I somehow doubt y...@google.com would reach you, and
futzed with the To: line above]
From: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com
This series adds supports for 'git log --no-walk=unsorted', which
should be useful for the re-roll of my
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Would anything break if we take your patch, but without two
possibilities to revs-no_walk option (i.e. we never sort under
no_walk)?
By the way, by would anything break, I do not just mean if our
existing tests trigger failures from
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
y...@google.com writes:
[Administrivia: I somehow doubt y...@google.com would reach you, and
futzed with the To: line above]
:-( Sorry, sendemail.from now set. (I apparently answered y instead
of just enter to accept
Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes:
I also thought the sorting was just a bug. From what I understand by
looking how the code has evolved, the sorting in the no-walk case was
not intentional, but more of a consequence of the implementation. That
patch you suggested
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes:
... so is a migration desired? Or just
change the default for --no-walk from sorted to unsorted in git
2.0?
I think the proper support for Johannes's case
Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes:
There is also cherry-pick/revert, which I _think_ does not really want
the revisions sorted.
A while ago when I was looking at revision.c, I was surprised to see
that commits are sorted even when --no-walk is passed, but as 8e64006
(Teach revision machinery about --no-walk, 2007-07-24) points out,
this can be useful for doing
$ git log --abbrev-commit --pretty=oneline --decorate --all
Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes:
There is also cherry-pick/revert, which I _think_ does not really want
the revisions sorted.
Yes, I think sequencer.c::prepare_revs() is wrong to unconditoinally
call prepare_revision_walk().
It instead should first check the
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes:
There is also cherry-pick/revert, which I _think_ does not really want
the revisions sorted.
Yes, I think sequencer.c::prepare_revs() is wrong to
10 matches
Mail list logo
