Hi Peff,
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:27:14PM +0100, Jean-Jacques Lafay wrote:
2012/11/11 Jeff King p...@peff.net:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 05:46:32PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
Ultimately, I have some ideas for doing this in a breadth-first way,
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 01:16:01AM +, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
We can do much better than O(number of commits), though, if we stop
traversing down a path when its timestamp shows that it is too old to
contain the commits we are searching for. The problem is that the
timestamps
Hi Peff,
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Jeff King wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 01:16:01AM +, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
We can do much better than O(number of commits), though, if we stop
traversing down a path when its timestamp shows that it is too old to
contain the commits we are
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 04:01:11AM +, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Note that name-rev will produce wrong answers in the face of clock skew.
And I think that you even wrote that code. :)
IIRC the cute code to short-circuit using the date is not from me. If it
is, I am very ashamed.
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Yeah. We tolerate a certain amount of skew (24 hours for --name-rev, and
5 broken commits in a row for --since). But the big ones are usually
software bugs (the big kernel ones were from broken guilt, I think) or
broken imports (when I published a bunch of skew
Hi Peff,
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Jeff King wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 04:01:11AM +, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Note that name-rev will produce wrong answers in the face of clock skew.
And I think that you even wrote that code. :)
IIRC the cute code to short-circuit using the
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 08:51:37PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Yeah. We tolerate a certain amount of skew (24 hours for --name-rev, and
5 broken commits in a row for --since). But the big ones are usually
software bugs (the big kernel ones were from
Hi,
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012, Jeff King wrote:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 05:46:32PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
However, I couldn't reproduce it on Linux : where the windows
implementations crashes at a ~32000 depth (*not* exactly 32768, mind
you), on linux it happily went through 10
8 matches
Mail list logo
