On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > > Someone started the avalanche by adding date to the structure. Of > > course, date is smaller, but it leads people (including me) out of the > > way. > > Yeah, the naming and the structure comes from "rev-tree.c", so there's a > bit of historical baggage already. > > Anyway, I don't think you should need it. I cleaned up things a bit, and > wrote a really simple "merge-base" thing that does base the "best" hit on > date, which ends up probably doing the right thing in practice.
Yours reads the whole commit history; I intentionally wrote mine to only read as far back as turns out to be necessary. I think that looking at the whole history is going to be impractical when you're trying to merge in a bunch of patches against the latest release, even if you pull the history out of a cache. When it's one step on one side and a dozen on the other, it matters a whole lot if there's a year of history behind the common ancestor(s). So I still think it's best to have a non-recursive commit parser, and do the recursion only as needed for the operation under consideration. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html