On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 07:46:43PM +0000, Jeff King wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 02:11:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > believe the proper way to do that is to help git-log knowing which are
> > the short (topic) branches, and to crawl incrementally using a
> > date-based hack. This would basically work a bit like this. Let's
> > imaging you want to crawl "next" in git and know which topics from pu
> > are in it. You would say e.g.:
>=20
> Hmm. Why a date-based hack to see what's on the topic branch? Why not
> just give an option to walk the graph twice,

it serves the purpose to not walk the graph twice actually, but indeed
twice is not _that_ bad.
=20
quoted text
> giving name-rev style annotations, and just let it be slow. People
> will mostly look at it by specifying just their topic branches anyway.
> IOW:
>=20
>   git log ^origin/master my/topic1 my/topic2 my/topic3
>=20
> and by virtue of the fact that you are vastly limiting the size of the
> tree, it won't actually end up too slow. So you haven't said so much
> "these are my topic branches" as "I am just not interested in things
> that are already upstream."

Well, I was just thinking quickly during jetlag-induced insomnia. I
don't really care about the issue that much actually.
--=20
=C2=B7O=C2=B7  Pierre Habouzit
=C2=B7=C2=B7O                                                madcoder@debia=
n.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org