On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 18:15 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In particular, is there some easy way to walk backwards by time? "git log"
> definitely needs that, and merge-base clearly wants something similar.
Actually the ideal output of 'git log' isn't strictly chronological.
IIRC my bkexport sc
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > But if there are simple helper functions to get the "next backwards in
> > time" case (by looking at the parent dates in a merge), then that should
> > be ok to do incrementally.
>
> Haven't written that yet, but I can do so.
Okay, I wrote this.
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> >
> > Any comment on the design, or should I send my implementation?
>
> Show the patches, and maybe I (and others) can make comments on the
> thing.. It doesn't sound broken by design, the only question
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
>
> Any comment on the design, or should I send my implementation?
Show the patches, and maybe I (and others) can make comments on the
thing.. It doesn't sound broken by design, the only question is how much
harder (if any) it is to use than the rat
After the fiasco with confusing struct revision for a struct commit, I've
worked out something that makes more sense. I've actually ported
fsck-cache, rev-tree, and my merge-base to it, so it should at least be
comprehensive.
The design is as follows:
There is a struct object for each object in t
5 matches
Mail list logo
