Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] revision.c: implement --max-count-oldest

From: Mirko Faina <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 02:09:30 +0200

On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 06:20:40PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Mirko Faina <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> >> BTW, this makes me think whether this kind of limiting could be
> >> triggered by a negative argument to --max-count.
> >
> > Would be a good idea if it weren't for the fact that --max-count < 0 has
> > for a long time acted like no max count. I'd imagine many could be
> > asssuming this behaviour in their scripts.
> 
> Many?  I am not sure.  
> 
> What do these script try to achieve by having "--max-count=-1"?  It
> would be to defeat --max-count=<n> coming from elsewhere, but where?

It's not necessarely to defeat a previous use of --max-count. If I know
that --max-count behaves in as certain way, in this case the same as not
having it when below 0, I can always have it in the command that I have
to run and just work with the argument (of course one would do this only
if it is easier to work with just the argument). That way I don't have
to conditionally add the option if it has to be enabled. Something like

	N=should_use_max_count_and_if_so_much_to_limit
	git rev-list --max-count=$N

Of course these script make use of behaviour that is not documented and
might not even be intended, so really their fault if it breaks.

This has been the behaviour of --max-count for a long time so I'm
assuming that there is a possibility that it will break many scripts.
But like I said, their fault if it breaks, if you think its not that
widespread I'll get rid of --max-count-oldest.