Re: [PATCH] Lose perl dependency. (fwd)

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 20, 2007, 09:28 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0701201025070.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vfya69xym.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Hi,

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > P.S.: Perhaps you should just stop worrying and learn to love --reverse 
> > ;-)
> 
> Another thing to think about is how --reverse should interact
> with --max-count and --skip (and perhaps --max-age but I am not
> sure about that one).
> 
> I think there are two very valid ways.  You determine what you
> would spit out as if there is no --reverse, and then reverse the
> result, or you do not limit with them to get everthing, reverse
> the result and do the counting limit on that reversed list.

Evidently, I did not even think about the latter. And I guess that most people expect the former, too. (Maybe we should make it a flipflop, so that "--reverse --reverse" unsets the reverse flag again?

> I do not think you would need to artificially make it limited like your 
> patch does if you go this route

Why? To see the last commit (which should be output first), I _have_ to traverse them first, before reversing the order. I thought revs->limited does exactly that -- traverse all commits first. Am I mistaken?

Ciao, Dscho