From: Kevin Bracey <kevin@bracey.fi>
To: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>,
Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] merge-base: add --merge-child option
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 20:29:38 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <518FD182.5020606@bracey.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130512165829.GM2299@serenity.lan>
On 12/05/2013 19:58, John Keeping wrote:
>
> With the patch below, the --ancestry-path version drops to under 2
> seconds.
>
> I'm not sure if this is a good idea though. It helps me say "I know
> nothing that isn't on the ancestry path can be patch-identical, so don't
> bother checking if it is" but it regresses users who want the full
> cherry-pick check while only limiting the output.
Hmm. Should an excluded commit be a valid comparator? Is it
sensible/correct to show a left commit as "=" to a right commit that has
been excluded by the revision specifiers? Doesn't sound right to me.
I'm not convinced that there's a valid use-case that you're regressing
here. If --ancestry-path is being misused (the user's assertion that
non-ancestry doesn't matter is wrong) the "error" of not noting culled
patch-identical commits is nothing compared to the fact we're already
totally omitting the non-identical ones.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-12 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-11 12:23 [RFC/PATCH 0/2] merge-base: add --merge-child option John Keeping
2013-05-11 12:23 ` [RFC/PATCH 1/2] commit: add commit_list_contains function John Keeping
2013-05-11 12:23 ` [RFC/PATCH 2/2] merge-base: add --merge-child option John Keeping
2013-05-11 17:54 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/2] " Junio C Hamano
2013-05-11 18:48 ` John Keeping
2013-05-12 15:44 ` Kevin Bracey
2013-05-12 16:28 ` John Keeping
2013-05-12 16:33 ` John Keeping
2013-05-12 17:14 ` Kevin Bracey
2013-05-12 22:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-05-13 14:26 ` Kevin Bracey
2013-05-13 14:45 ` Michael J Gruber
2013-05-19 12:40 ` log --cherry and merges (was [RFC/PATCH 0/2] merge-base: add --merge-child option) John Keeping
2013-05-20 6:43 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-05-13 15:00 ` [PATCH 0/2] Make --ancestry-path A...B work Kevin Bracey
2013-05-13 15:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] t6019: demonstrate --ancestry-path A...B breakage Kevin Bracey
2013-05-13 15:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] revision.c: treat A...B merge bases as if manually specified Kevin Bracey
2013-05-13 16:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-05-12 16:58 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/2] merge-base: add --merge-child option John Keeping
2013-05-12 17:29 ` Kevin Bracey [this message]
2013-05-13 5:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-05-13 7:52 ` John Keeping
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=518FD182.5020606@bracey.fi \
--to=kevin@bracey.fi \
--cc=git@drmicha.warpmail.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=john@keeping.me.uk \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.