Re: a few remaining issues...

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > However, once the reflog traversal hits the oldest reflog entry, it 
> > reverts to commit parent traversal.
> 
> That doesn't make sense...
> 
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > 
> > > I couldn't make heads or tails out of the patch and did not understand 
> > > what it was trying to do.  It looked as if you were making the log 
> > > traversal machinery to walk _both_ reflog (probably from the latest to 
> > > older) and the usual ancestry.
> > 
> > Yes, first reflog, then usual ancestry.
> > 
> > Would you want that changed to _only_ reflog traversal?
> 
> Yes.  The old ancestry has nothing to do with my local reflog.  I
> want to know where my reflog ends, as there's no record of that
> branch's lifespan before that point.
> 
> Right now I have a reflog on `pu` which I've had since reflogs were
> first introduced last summer.  Yet it only goes back to Dec 23, 2006.
> Looking at the old ancestry of pu back into last Oct isn't really
> interesting when I'm studying what changes happened to locally.