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 12:46:23 -0700 Message-ID: <20100413194623.GA17484@spearce.org> References: <20100411024008.GC23075@spearce.org> <1271114729-18166-5-git-send-email-spearce@spearce.org> <201004131132.30186.trast@student.ethz.ch> <20100413140830.GA12635@spearce.org> <7vbpdnupbm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Rast , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 13 21:46:38 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 1O1m4B-0002My-NO for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:46:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752300Ab0DMTqa (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:46:30 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:53975 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751628Ab0DMTq3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:46:29 -0400 Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so382396wyf.19 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.90.206 with SMTP id e56mr72916wef.167.1271187988437; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (yellowpostit.mtv.corp.google.com [172.18.104.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h31sm2642463wbh.1.2010.04.13.12.46.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vbpdnupbm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> 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: Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > > > 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. > > Surely I can, but I am curious as to the motivation behind '1 second' in > the original patch. If you wanted to give these '1 second' ones slight > preference over the ones with 'date stamp at the UNIX epoch', that logic > is not there anymore in the re-rolled series, no? The 1-second in the original patch had nothing to do about giving one tag an edge over another tag. The meaning of date in the original patch was: date = 0: we haven't yet looked up the date date = 1: we looked it up, but there is no tagger present date > 0: "valid" date, we can sort with it So date = 1 was just about getting ourselves out of the !date case so that we didn't keep parsing a tag which has no tagger field present. In the new version this is handled by the standard parsed field of struct object. So I didn't need to overload the meaning of the date field anymore. Make sense? -- Shawn.