Confused about the output of 'bzr log --f --limit=X'

John Arbash Meinel john at arbash-meinel.com
Fri Dec 14 15:38:34 GMT 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>>>>>> "adeato" == Adeodato Simó <dato at net.com.org.es> writes:
> 
>     adeato> * Vincent Vertigo [Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:59:47 +0100]:
>     >> Hi,
> 
>     >> First, using bzr from command-line, I find the 'forward /
>     >> --f' option mandatory as soon as my branch exceeds 50
>     >> revisions: I am usually more interested in the log of my
>     >> latest revisions,
> 
> Me too.
> 
>     >> and it seems more logical to me in that chronological
>     >> order.
> 
> They are in *a* chronological order ;-)
> 
> I think most of "us" use it in conjunction with --limit in such a
> way that it does not exceed a screen length. Then we read what we
> are more interested in in logical order too: starting with the
> most recent ones.
> 
>     >> Am I the only one?
> 
> No, your point of view is valid too.

Well, I always use:

log = log --short --forward -r -10..-1

But otherwise I would agree that limit is meant to do the same thing whether
- --forward is given or not.

It is just an implementation bug that it doesn't (it basically starts logging
as requested, and count up to limit before stopping).

So feel free to submit a bug, patches welcome :)

John
=:->


> 
> <snip/>
> 
>     adeato> I definitely see an argument for changing it to
>     adeato> "limit the output to the N *newest* revisions". I'd
>     adeato> be glad to hear what the developers think about this.
> 
> I agree with that too.
> 
>   Vincent
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHYqN6JdeBCYSNAAMRAtBIAKCY4aBUAOISH957Y76kCzqiXXyysACeJ3Vz
hTHlwS7Bq8b/uWZB0lTD9B4=
=/iAI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the bazaar mailing list