From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: git-rev-list bug? Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:01:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7vacc0iten.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vmzfy1zjb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7virqmzlhb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v4q26zklx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vslpqy4u7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Reply-To: Catalin Marinas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 10 12:02:41 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FHfO5-0007LQ-9Z for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:02:25 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752224AbWCJLCW (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:02:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932235AbWCJLCW (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:02:22 -0500 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([193.131.176.58]:7845 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752223AbWCJLCV (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:02:21 -0500 Received: from cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com (cam-owa2.emea.arm.com [10.1.255.63]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k2AB21uc019092; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:02:02 GMT Received: from localhost.localdomain ([10.1.255.211]) by cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:02:01 +0000 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7vslpqy4u7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:25:04 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2006 11:02:01.0803 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F0A61B0:01C64432] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> It however has a side effect -- uninteresting commits were never >> parsed here, but now they get parsed. I am not sure if there >> are correctness implications... > > Actually there is. If a merge with an uninteresting side branch > was the only thing that brought changes to paths we are > interested in, we do not want TREE_SAME logic to remove other > parents (i.e. the branches we are interested in) from the merge > commit. > > So we would need a combination of both, something like this? I can confirm that it "stg patches" works fine with this patch for git-rev-list. Thanks. -- Catalin