On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:01:23 +0200 Roel Janssen wrote: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > > > Hi! > > > > Benz Schenk skribis: > > > >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:37:00 +0200 > >> Roel Janssen wrote: > > > > [...] > > > [...] > >> > >> I adapted your patch to hopefully implement the desired behaviour, but > >> it might need some cleaning up as I'm just getting started learning > >> scheme. > > > >>From what I can see that Benz’ patch does indeed work as expected (but > > really, the example above is a corner case that we shouldn’t worry too > > much about.) > > > > Roel, if that’s fine with you, please commit with proper commit log and > > acknowledgment. > > > > Thanks to both of you. :-) > > Thanks a lot Benz! > > There's only one thing: > Would it make more sense to stick to the chronology of the generations > (sorting them before displaying them)? IMO it's useful to see the diffs in reverse when before switching to some previous generation, although you can easily see the changes no matter how you order the generations, so I don't really have a strong opinion either way. > > > If you think Benz's patch is good, then I will push that one. Otherwise > I'll adapt it to sort the generations. > > @Benz, what's the copyright line you want to have in the patch? I guess Copyright © 2016 Benz Schenk > > Kind regards, > Roel Janssen Kind regards, Benz Schenk PS: @Roel Janssen, sorry for double-posting I forgot to cc guix-devel @everyone on the bright side, I updated the patch to use display-generation instead of the copy+pasted mess I created in the last patch and added my copyright lines. I also realized that with this patch, list-generations with generations that do not differ, will simply display the generation number and date like >Generation 54 Oct 19 2016 13:42:16 >[... ] >Generation 56 Oct 21 2016 15:12:24 >Generation 57 Oct 23 2016 18:15:03 >[... ] I'm not sure if that might be confusing.