From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] describe: Break annotated tag ties by tagger date Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:08:30 -0700 Message-ID: <20100413140830.GA12635@spearce.org> References: <20100411024008.GC23075@spearce.org> <1271114729-18166-5-git-send-email-spearce@spearce.org> <201004131132.30186.trast@student.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Rast X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 13 16:08:46 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1gnE-0006QW-Id for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:08:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751766Ab0DMOIj (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:08:39 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]:62867 "EHLO mail-bw0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751514Ab0DMOIi (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:08:38 -0400 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so8051bwz.21 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.138.219 with SMTP id b27mr1042556bku.139.1271167716073; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (yellowpostit.mtv.corp.google.com [172.18.104.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a11sm46563870bkc.3.2010.04.13.07.08.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201004131132.30186.trast@student.ethz.ch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Thomas Rast wrote: > Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > If the tag is an older-style annotated tag with no tagger date, > > we assume a date stamp of 1 second after the UNIX epoch. > > This patch doesn't seem to actually set this, but as a minor nit: the > '1 second' contradicts the 0 mentioned in the last patch. > > (The effect is the same for all practical purposes.) Whoops. Old commit message from v1. I skim read it knowing I needed to adjust something in the message before reusing it, but didn't see anything, so sent it as-is. Junio, it might make sense to drop the part Thomas quoted above before you apply this. -- Shawn.