From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a 'source' decorator for commits Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:27:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20081028202702.GA1876@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20081028054539.GA23195@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20081028131116.GA8272@artemis.googlewifi.com> <20081028194642.GB752@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20081028200901.GA2894@artemis.mtv.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano To: Pierre Habouzit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 28 21:28:31 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KuvAt-00064J-Dv for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:28:23 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753543AbYJ1U1J (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:27:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753602AbYJ1U1I (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:27:08 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:4973 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754068AbYJ1U1H (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:27:07 -0400 Received: (qmail 23468 invoked by uid 111); 28 Oct 2008 20:27:05 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (216.239.45.19) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:27:05 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:27:03 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081028200901.GA2894@artemis.mtv.corp.google.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:09:02PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > Hmm. Why a date-based hack to see what's on the topic branch? Why not > > just give an option to walk the graph twice, > > it serves the purpose to not walk the graph twice actually, but indeed > twice is not _that_ bad. Sure, and that is reasonable. But I think the real goal is "give this information in a not-painfully slow manner". So if we can do it by walking a smaller graph twice, I think that is OK, too. > Well, I was just thinking quickly during jetlag-induced insomnia. I > don't really care about the issue that much actually. Heh. I have to admit I don't care enough to work on this personally, either. I just _thought_ Linus was working on it, but I think what he is doing is subtly different, and our discussion has diverged to something that, if it ever came to pass, would be a separate feature. -Peff