On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Luke Diamand l...@diamand.org wrote:
On 08/06/15 18:18, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Lex Spoon l...@lexspoon.org writes:
Precisely, Junio, that's what I had in mind. The patch with the two
lines deleted LGTM.
Thanks, will do.
I don't think we're quite there
Lex Spoon l...@lexspoon.org writes:
Unless I am reading something wrong, the new_changes variable could
be dropped now. It was needed for the -m version for detecting the
smallest change number that was returned. Otherwise it looks good to
me.
Meaning that I should squash this in to 3/3,
Precisely, Junio, that's what I had in mind. The patch with the two
lines deleted LGTM.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
The --changes-block-size handling was intended to help when
a user has a limited maxscanrows (see p4 group). It used
p4 changes -m $maxchanges to limit the number of results.
Unfortunately, it turns out that the maxscanrows and maxresults
limits are actually applied *before* the -m maxchanges
Unless I am reading something wrong, the new_changes variable could
be dropped now. It was needed for the -m version for detecting the
smallest change number that was returned. Otherwise it looks good to
me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message
5 matches
Mail list logo
