Re: [PATCH] name-rev: include taggerdate in considering the best name

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 22, 2016, 18:27 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqeg9xpkhb.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160422181103.GA5920@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> That turned out to be quite simple (I wasn't sure originally if we'd
> actually visit all of the tags, which is why I had conceived of this as
> an initial pass; but of course it makes sense that we'd have to see all
> of the tags in the existing code).
> ...
> We could _also_ tweak the merge-weight as Linus's patch did, just
> because 10000 has more basis than 65535. But I think it really matters a
> lot less at this point.

I agree, but if we were to go this route of keeping track of "some" attribute of the tip the traversal started from, I wonder if it is better to keep the actual tag object, not just its tagger date as an unsigned long, in the new field.

That way, a tweak may be able to even use the v:refname comparison if we wanted to do so in the future. It is easy to go from a tag object to its tagger date, but it is impossible to go in the other direction, i.e. given a tagger date to go back to the tag.