Re: [PATCH] First cut at libifying revlist generation

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Feb 27, 2006, 03:19 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602261914270.22647@g5.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vpsl93395.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> 
> I am clueless about the "limited = (list && list->next)" part,
> but there is only one commit involved hence the test is false
> with my testcase "git-rev-list --objects v1.0.0^0..v1.0.0"; I
> think the old code said dotdot is a limited case.

dotdot should insert _two_ commits onto the list - the positive and the negative one. Doesn't it?

So the

	if (list && list->next)

check should be correct. If we have just one entry, there's no reason to do everything up-front, we can just run with it (and get the nice streaming behaviour).

> -static struct object_list *pending_objects = NULL;
> -
> -	for (pending = pending_objects; pending; pending = pending->next) {
> +	for (pending = revs.pending_objects; pending; pending = pending->next) {

But this part is obviously correct. I already sent out the same patch a minute ago ;)

> -	if (revs.max_age || revs.min_age)
> +	if (revs.max_age != -1 || revs.min_age != -1)

As is this. I for a while had zero meaning "no age", and I actually think it probably should be that way, but then we'd have to switch the date-related functions around, which is why I decided not to do it after all (but missed this one that I had already written for that case).

		Linus