From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:16:34 GMT
Subject: Re: git rev-list ordering
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0811162215370.30769@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811152040570.2935@sys-0.hiltweb.site>

Hi,

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Ian Hilt wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
> > The --reverse is applied after the --max-count, so you are seeing the 
> > reverse of one commit ;). For comparison, have a look at:
> > 
> > $ git rev-list --reverse --max-count=2
> 
> Ah, I see.  So if you didn't want the sorting to take a long time for 
> many commits, you would limit the output to n commits, then sort the 
> output.  Is this the logic behind this design?

Yes.  It is by design, since the guy who wrote the initial --reverse 
support cannot think of an interesting situation where you need to list 
the oldest n commits.

Ciao,
Dscho