| commit | 4262c1b0c38613a8c5ae729bd4d3f18f0df3ec44 | |
| author | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> | |
| Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:31:41 +0000 (18 20:31 -0700) | ||
| committer | Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> | |
| Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:08:06 +0000 (18 21:08 -0700) | ||
| tree | 403c3c952087b26fb6923b78a73d980576c7d502 | treesnapshot (tar.gz zip) |
| parent | 24735cfc500feb2a8dba9f140080ab3476363d28 | commitdiff |
Fix uninteresting tags in new revision parsing
When I unified the revision argument parsing, I introduced a simple bug
wrt tags that had been marked uninteresting. When it was preparing for the
revision walk, it would mark all the parent commits of an uninteresting
tag correctly uninteresting, but it would forget about the commit itself.
This means that when I just did my 2.6.17-rc2 release, and my scripts
generated the log for "v2.6.17-rc1..v2.6.17-rc2", everything was fine,
except the commit pointed to by 2.6.17-rc1 (which shouldn't have been
there) was included. Even though it should obviously have been marked as
being uninteresting.
Not a huge deal, and the fix is trivial.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
When I unified the revision argument parsing, I introduced a simple bug
wrt tags that had been marked uninteresting. When it was preparing for the
revision walk, it would mark all the parent commits of an uninteresting
tag correctly uninteresting, but it would forget about the commit itself.
This means that when I just did my 2.6.17-rc2 release, and my scripts
generated the log for "v2.6.17-rc1..v2.6.17-rc2", everything was fine,
except the commit pointed to by 2.6.17-rc1 (which shouldn't have been
there) was included. Even though it should obviously have been marked as
being uninteresting.
Not a huge deal, and the fix is trivial.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
| revision.c | diffblobblamehistory |