Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a 'source' decorator for commits

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Oct 28, 2008, 19:46 UTC
Message-ID: <20081028194642.GB752@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20081028131116.GA8272@artemis.googlewifi.com>

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 02:11:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

> Actually I tried to do that (and you meant name-rev --contains rather
> than describe actually ;p), and I stopped because it's too slow. I

I think we are both wrong, since it's "git describe --contains". ;) But yes, that was what I meant.

Show 5 quoted lines

> believe the proper way to do that is to help git-log knowing which are
> the short (topic) branches, and to crawl incrementally using a
> date-based hack. This would basically work a bit like this. Let's
> imaging you want to crawl "next" in git and know which topics from pu
> are in it. You would say e.g.:

Hmm. Why a date-based hack to see what's on the topic branch? Why not just give an option to walk the graph twice, giving name-rev style annotations, and just let it be slow. People will mostly look at it by specifying just their topic branches anyway. IOW:

  git log ^origin/master my/topic1 my/topic2 my/topic3

and by virtue of the fact that you are vastly limiting the size of the tree, it won't actually end up too slow. So you haven't said so much "these are my topic branches" as "I am just not interested in things that are already upstream."

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something here:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Then one has to know which are the heads of every topic branches first,
> then crawl next the usual way, except that when you arrive to a point
> that is a topic branch head, you don't look that way. You remember the
> date of that point, and continue to crawl "next" a bit further so that
> you can start annotating the topic's commits you've stumbled upon. And
> you do that, you look at jd/topic (as in John Doe topic branch) and mark
> all the commits as being from jd/topic, until you either go back to some
> commit from next, or your current commit date is younger than your
> current "next" crawling front. In the former case, you're done with that
> topic, in the latter you must continue to preprocess "next" a bit more.

When you say "heads of topic branches" do you mean we actually have the topic branches? Or do you mean you want to crawl next, pulling the names of the topic branches from the merge messages?

-Peff