From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sean" Subject: Re: cg-log patches Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:13:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4712.10.10.10.24.1115644427.squirrel@linux1> References: <1742.10.10.10.24.1115573750.squirrel@linux1> <20050508234936.GA26624@diku.dk> <4302.10.10.10.24.1115610350.squirrel@linux1> <20050509113907.GA22830@diku.dk> <20050509121435.GB18382@pasky.ji.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: "Jonas Fonseca" , "GIT Mailing List" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 09 15:08:01 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DV7y1-00004w-Tg for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 15:06:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261354AbVEINNv (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2005 09:13:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261359AbVEINNv (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2005 09:13:51 -0400 Received: from simmts8.bellnexxia.net ([206.47.199.166]:42937 "EHLO simmts8-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261354AbVEINNs (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2005 09:13:48 -0400 Received: from linux1 ([69.156.111.46]) by simmts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20050509131347.GMIA1623.simmts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@linux1>; Mon, 9 May 2005 09:13:47 -0400 Received: from linux1 (linux1.attic.local [127.0.0.1]) by linux1 (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j49DDiS2004546; Mon, 9 May 2005 09:13:44 -0400 Received: from 10.10.10.24 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sean) by linux1 with HTTP; Mon, 9 May 2005 09:13:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20050509121435.GB18382@pasky.ji.cz> To: "Petr Baudis" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4-2 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 9, 2005 8:14 am, Petr Baudis said: > But that makes no sense, since each merge will have enormous amount of > files listed, making no sense. E.g. each merge of Cogito with Linus will > have all the Cogito files listed, since they aren't in the Linus branch > - but that's wrong, since the merge _to_ the Cogito branch concerns no > Cogito files. > > In git, the parents list is unordered. But this is different in Cogito, > where the first parent _is_ special. If you are merging _from_ branch B > _to_ branch A, the order of parents will be always But, there are commits (even in your tree) that aren't produced by Cogito. And the current logic gets them wrong. Look at commit: 211232bae64bcc60bbf5d1b5e5b2344c22ed767e in your tree. The current logic will miss the fact that one of the other parents altered, git-apply-patch-script. Seems better to over report, than under report changes, although I agree that some way must be found to handle the merge case. Sean