Re: Re: git rev-list ordering

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I see.  Well, the situation in which I found this to be needed was while 
> trying to figure out how to find the next commit on branch X while on a 
> detached head from that branch without counting how many commits back I 
> was.  In other words,
> 
> $ git checkout X~4
> $ # now I want X~3 without using a number or carets
> $ git checkout $(git rev-list --reverse ..X | head -1)
>  -- or --
> $ git checkout $(git rev-list ..X | tail -1)