Junio C Hamano writes:
> If you want to do this in a multi-step series (which may not be a
> bad idea), I would imagine that the enum starts as a choice between
> the two: traversal-order vs committer-date-order. The first patch
> would change nothing else.
>
> And then you would add the third c
Elliott Cable writes:
>> And update revs->lifo to use that same enum, without adding
>> use_author_date bit to rev_info.
>
> I'll look into replacing lifo with an enum as soon as I can sit back
> down to update this patch. For the moment, nothing more than
> committer_date_sort and author_date_so
Wow. That's my bad entirely. I apparently hallucinated a section
suggesting that you “sign-off” commits that you'd reviewed, or
something; and I'd completely skipped the section on certifying that
you have legal rights to the work, because I'd *written* it, and
didn't think it'd be relevant.
I fee
Elliott Cable writes:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> elliottcable writes:
>>> Thus, I've added an --authorship-order version of --date-order, which relies
>>> upon the AUTHOR_DATE instead of the COMMITTER_DATE; this means that old
>>> commits
>>> will continue to sh
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> elliottcable writes:
>> Thus, I've added an --authorship-order version of --date-order, which relies
>> upon the AUTHOR_DATE instead of the COMMITTER_DATE; this means that old
>> commits
>> will continue to show up chronologically in-order
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 12:14:21PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > diff --git a/commit.h b/commit.h
> > index 67bd509..de07525 100644
> > --- a/commit.h
> > +++ b/commit.h
> > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ struct commit {
> > void *util;
> > unsigned int indegree;
> > unsigned long date;
> > +
Junio C Hamano writes:
>> @@ -301,7 +328,8 @@ int parse_commit_buffer(struct commit *item, const void
>> *buffer, unsigned long s
>> pptr = &commit_list_insert(new_parent, pptr)->next;
>> }
>> }
>> -item->date = parse_commit_date(bufptr, tail);
>> +
elliottcable writes:
> --date-order is an excellent alternative to --topo-order if you want a feel
> for
> the *actual history*, chronologically, of your project. I use it often, with
> --graph as well; it's a great way to get an overview of a project's recent
> development history.
>
> However,
--date-order is an excellent alternative to --topo-order if you want a feel for
the *actual history*, chronologically, of your project. I use it often, with
--graph as well; it's a great way to get an overview of a project's recent
development history.
However, in a project that rebases various in
9 matches
Mail list logo
