threads / discuss / 27201
Subject: Difference between --date-order and reverse chronological order?
Dun PealHi.
The git-log manpage defines --date-order:
"This option is similar to --topo-order in the sense that no parent comes before all of its children, but otherwise things are still ordered in the commit timestamp order."
But by Git's definition, for a child commit to be created, its parent must already exist. So even in reverse chronological order, all parents should come after all their children, no?
Thanks, D.
Junio C HamanoRe: Difference between --date-order and reverse chronological order?
Dun Peal <dunpealer@gmail.com> writes:
> But by Git's definition, for a child commit to be created, its parent > must already exist. So even in reverse chronological order, all > parents should come after all their children, no?
I think "distributed" and "your clock may be skewed" would solve that puzzlement ;-)
Johannes SixtRe: Difference between --date-order and reverse chronological order?
Am 27.04.2011 19:36, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Dun Peal <dunpealer@gmail.com> writes: > >> But by Git's definition, for a child commit to be created, its parent >> must already exist. So even in reverse chronological order, all >> parents should come after all their children, no? > > I think "distributed" and "your clock may be skewed" would solve that > puzzlement ;-)
Are you saying that given this history:
E----D
/ /
A--B--C* we can get D-C-B-E-A or D-E-C-B-A with --topo-order
* we can get the above plus D-C-E-B-A with --date-order
* and with neither --topo-order nor --date-order we can also get D-E-A-C-B or D-C-B-A-E if there was sufficient clock skew when the commits were created. How would such a clock skew have looked like?
-- Hannes