)]}'
{
  "commit": "669a7676c77fe83aba1ca980566767df86a71915",
  "tree": "1c98dc3fd062ed473eb8f0a01b62fcfa1424a027",
  "parents": [
    "70c02cee7442f0d0037ed7648766cd045cd749e2"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "ifrade",
    "email": "ifrade@google.com",
    "time": "Mon Aug 24 14:43:52 2026 -0700"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "ifrade",
    "email": "ifrade@google.com",
    "time": "Mon Aug 24 15:26:18 2026 -0700"
  },
  "message": "TreeRevFilter: Make TreeRevFilter more readable and maintainable\n\nThe TreeRevFilter code can be very confusing to read and maintain for a\nnumber of reasons. First, the use of \"shouldTreeWalk\" does not require\nany treeWalk setup. Nesting the usage of \"shouldTreeWalk\" within the\nTreeWalk logic is making the code difficult to maintain. Second, the\ncurrent \"shouldTreeWalk\" logic sits after the TreeWalk setup, which\nintroduces unnecessary latency. Third, the TreeWalk logic if conditions\nare out of order, it is currently evaluating parentCount \u003d\u003d 1 -\u003e\nparentCount \u003d\u003d 0 -\u003e parentCount \u003e1. Fourth, The fragmented flag handling\nof setting rewriteFlag unnecessarily confusing; TreeRevFilter should\nalways set it when returning false.\n\nMove ChangePathFilter logic ahead of any TreeWalk setup, make the\nTreeWalk logic self-contained, re-arranged if conditions, and isolate\nrewriteFlag handling logic away from the filtering logic.\n\nSigned-off-by: Xing Huang \u003cxingkhuang@google.com\u003e\nChange-Id: I91eadee2ef615f78c048bd277096ed9ff09f2025\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "316a7686301247cddb53d093a50da4f6d86a2a57",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "org.eclipse.jgit/src/org/eclipse/jgit/revwalk/TreeRevFilter.java",
      "new_id": "c32b1d25f6b96e3a3d30cc626cbff27a0820f320",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "org.eclipse.jgit/src/org/eclipse/jgit/revwalk/TreeRevFilter.java"
    }
  ]
}