Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/2] Make path-limiting be incremental when possible.

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

OK, so let's say I agree with you that --unpacked and --since
are "stop early" rules.  I fully agree with that from usability
and implementation point of view, but I now wonder if the
"output filter" in get_revision() and "stop early" in limit_list()
would do the same thing.

They don't.

What ends up not working very well at all is the combination of 
"--topo-order" and the output filter in get_revision. It will return NULL 
when we see the first commit out of date-order, even if we have other 
commits coming.

So we really should do the "past the date order" thing in get_revision() 
only if we have _not_ done it already in limit_list().

Something like this.

The easiest way to test this is with just

	gitk --since=3.days.ago

on the kernel tree. Without this patch, it tends to be pretty obviously 
broken.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

		Linus

---

diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
index a8a54b6..558ed01 100644
--- a/revision.c
+++ b/revision.c

@@ -783,10 +783,14 @@ struct commit *get_revision(struct rev_i
 
 		/*
 		 * If we haven't done the list limiting, we need to look at
-		 * the parents here
+		 * the parents here. We also need to do the date-based limiting
+		 * that we'd otherwise have done in limit_list().
 		 */
-		if (!revs->limited)
+		if (!revs->limited) {
+			if (revs->max_age != -1 && (commit->date < revs->max_age))
+				continue;
 			add_parents_to_list(revs, commit, &revs->commits);
+		}
 		if (commit->object.flags & SHOWN)
 			continue;
 		if (!(commit->object.flags & BOUNDARY) &&

@@ -794,8 +798,6 @@ struct commit *get_revision(struct rev_i
 			continue;
 		if (revs->min_age != -1 && (commit->date > revs->min_age))
 			continue;
-		if (revs->max_age != -1 && (commit->date < revs->max_age))
-			return NULL;
 		if (revs->no_merges &&
 		    commit->parents && commit->parents->next)
 			continue;