From: Josh Boyer Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 20:11:23 GMT Subject: Re: Specifying N revisions after the initial commit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Josh Boyer writes: > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Khomoutov >> ... >>> Hence, given any particular commit, you're able to trace all of its >>> ancestry, but the reverse is not possible. >> >> That makes sense. I suppose I will have to resort to parsing output >> of git-rev-list or something. Thanks for the reminder. > > I think Konstantin explained why it fundamentally does not make > sense to ask "which one is the Nth one after the root". I am not > sure how running rev-list and count its output would help, unless > you are now solving a different problem (perhaps "find all the ones > that are Nth after some root", which does have an answer). Oh, context would help, yes. In the case of the tree I'm parsing, I know for a fact that the commit history is entirely linear and will (should) always remain so. E.g. A - B - C - D - E - F ... {N} So yes, finding e.g. the second commit after the root is complicated for something resembling anything like a typical git repo, but this isn't like that. In other words, I can cheat. Or at least I'm pretty sure I can cheat :). josh