Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Use generation numbers for --topo-order

2018-11-01 Thread Junio C Hamano
Derrick Stolee writes: >> Review discussions seem to have petered out. Would we merge this to >> 'next' and start cooking, perhaps for the remainder of this cycle? > > Thanks, but I've just sent a v5 responding to Jakub's feedback on v4. [1] > > I'd be happy to let it sit in next until you feel

Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Use generation numbers for --topo-order

2018-11-01 Thread Derrick Stolee
On 11/1/2018 1:21 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" writes: This patch series performs a decently-sized refactoring of the revision-walk machinery. Well, "refactoring" is probably the wrong word, as I don't actually remove the old code. Instead, when we see certain

Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Use generation numbers for --topo-order

2018-10-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" writes: > This patch series performs a decently-sized refactoring of the revision-walk > machinery. Well, "refactoring" is probably the wrong word, as I don't > actually remove the old code. Instead, when we see certain options in the > 'rev_info' struct, we

Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Use generation numbers for --topo-order

2018-10-21 Thread Jakub Narebski
"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" writes: > This patch series performs a decently-sized refactoring of the revision-walk > machinery. Well, "refactoring" is probably the wrong word, as I don't > actually remove the old code. Instead, when we see certain options in the > 'rev_info' struct, we

[PATCH v4 0/7] Use generation numbers for --topo-order

2018-10-16 Thread Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
This patch series performs a decently-sized refactoring of the revision-walk machinery. Well, "refactoring" is probably the wrong word, as I don't actually remove the old code. Instead, when we see certain options in the 'rev_info' struct, we redirect the commit-walk logic to a new set of methods