From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: log -g --reverse horribly insane Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:09:52 -0700 Message-ID: <7v8x87dh5r.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20070819085624.GU27913@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Aug 19 11:10:19 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IMgnY-0002r9-1O for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:10:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752052AbXHSJKE (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Aug 2007 05:10:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752041AbXHSJKB (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Aug 2007 05:10:01 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:42197 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751903AbXHSJKB (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Aug 2007 05:10:01 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58418124225; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 05:10:17 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20070819085624.GU27913@spearce.org> (Shawn O. Pearce's message of "Sun, 19 Aug 2007 04:56:24 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > OK, I'm just too tired to find this on my own right now. I'll try > again later after I get some sleep, but maybe someone with a > different sleeping pattern than me will find and fix this before > I arise... > > git log -g --reverse --pretty=oneline I would have to say that "-g" support was hacked into the normal revision traversal machinery in such a way to minimize the amount of changes, without refactoring the two completely different traversal machineries separate to make the resulting code maintainable. Ideal refactoring would require quite a lot of changes, unfortunately. I would say it probably would make sense to make the two options incompatible for now.