Re: First/oldest entry in reflog dropped

> > So let's do this, which is the equivalent behavior to your gotos, but
> > this structure makes more sense to me as a reader (and it doesn't
> > involve goto :) ).
> 
> I have a feeling that we probably should have structured the code a bit
> more modularly, placing some info in "rev" that tells us how to "pop" a
> commit from the rev->list (typically "not the ones that we have shown"),
> what other commits to push back into the queue (typically, "all the
> parents that are not interesting"), and what side effects we should cause
> when we do so (typically, "mark uninteresting parents"), etc., instead of
> the current "if we are walking reflog, here is the special codepath we
> take", so that the walking is more generalized when we did the reflog
> walking (in fact, if we did this properly we probably wouldn't be calling
> it "bolted on").  But for now let's refrain from doing such a rewrite.