Hi,

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted text
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > P.S.: Perhaps you should just stop worrying and learn to love --reverse 
> > ;-)
> 
> Another thing to think about is how --reverse should interact
> with --max-count and --skip (and perhaps --max-age but I am not
> sure about that one).
> 
> I think there are two very valid ways.  You determine what you
> would spit out as if there is no --reverse, and then reverse the
> result, or you do not limit with them to get everthing, reverse
> the result and do the counting limit on that reversed list.

Evidently, I did not even think about the latter. And I guess that most 
people expect the former, too. (Maybe we should make it a flipflop, so 
that "--reverse --reverse" unsets the reverse flag again?

quoted text
> I do not think you would need to artificially make it limited like your 
> patch does if you go this route

Why? To see the last commit (which should be output first), I _have_ to 
traverse them first, before reversing the order. I thought revs->limited 
does exactly that -- traverse all commits first. Am I mistaken?

Ciao,
Dscho

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html