Re: qgit-0.7
- From
- Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Date
- Jul 10, 2005, 13:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20050710134309.GA24935@elte.hu>
- In-Reply-To
- <20050710122531.15175.qmail@web26303.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
* Marco Costalba <mcostalba@yahoo.it> wrote:
> So I cannot reproduce the bug. [...]
weird - i cannot reproduce it either anymore, and annotate works now as advertised - it's fast and accurate as far as i checked. But i synced to the latest tree meanwhile. Perhaps i had an inconsistent tree?
(i'll keep an eye on this, i've uncommented that printout, so if it ever happens again i'll have the data.)
now that everything is working fine, may i suggest improvements? :-) Firstly, now i'm listed as the author for most portions of sched.c, which is accurate for a fair portion of that, but is only done by qgit because i happened to be the author of the first commit. So it would be more accurate to denote version 1's author as empty (or with some other, nonintrusive string that shows that this file came here due to the initial commit)? We dont know the full history yet, because the current DB's history starts at 2.6.12-rc2, with a full sched.c file. (I think an empty author field would reflect version #1's authorship most accurately, and would be the visually least intrusive.)
Ingo