From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Hommey Subject: Question about the revision walking API Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:02:30 +0900 Message-ID: <20150106020230.GA28274@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 06 03:03:40 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y8JTl-0006EV-EY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 03:02:41 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754433AbbAFCCh (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 21:02:37 -0500 Received: from ks3293202.kimsufi.com ([5.135.186.141]:47193 "EHLO glandium.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753388AbbAFCCg (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 21:02:36 -0500 Received: from glandium by zenigata with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Y8JTa-0007P7-TR for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:02:30 +0900 Content-Disposition: inline X-GPG-Fingerprint: 182E 161D 1130 B9FC CD7D B167 E42A A04F A6AA 8C72 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, I would like to know if the revision walking API works as one would expect with a calling sequence like the following: - init_revisions - add_pending_object/setup_revisions - prepare_revision_walk - get_revision (repeated) - reset_revision_walk (I guess) - add_pending_object - prepare_revision_walk - get_revision (repeated) That is, do a first revision walk based on a given rev_info, then reuse that rev_info with additional commit objects (in my case, I want to add more UNINTERESTING commits) and redo a revision walk based on the modified rev_info (so, avoid reinitializing a rev_info and filling it from scratch again with the additional UNINTERESTING commits). I guess I could try and see if that works, but I'd rather have an informed answer than to derive my own from the fact my testcase would happen to work by chance. Cheers, Mike