Re: [PATCH] interpret_nth_last_branch(): avoid traversing the reflogs twice
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:45:59
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] interpret_nth_last_branch(): avoid traversing the reflogs twice · Johannes Schindelin <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] interpret_nth_last_branch(): avoid traversing the reflogs twice · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · [PATCH] interpret_nth_last_branch(): avoid traversing the reflogs twice · Johannes Schindelin <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] interpret_nth_last_branch(): avoid traversing the reflogs twice · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] interpret_nth_last_branch(): avoid traversing the reflogs twice · Johannes Schindelin <hidden>
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
This, together with a removal of the hard-coded limit of 16 could be squashed with this patch:
Yeah, I think that makes very much sense, not because 16 is too small, but because it does not make sense to keep track of all 16 when you asked for the last (or the second from the last) event. Thanks for a free sanity ;-)