From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: kernel.org now has gitweb installed Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:20:14 +0100 Message-ID: <1114723214.2734.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <42703E79.8050808@zytor.com> <1114673723.12012.324.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> <20050428081005.GG8612@pasky.ji.cz> <1114676955.12012.346.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> <1114680199.12012.363.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Petr Baudis , "H. Peter Anvin" , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 28 23:17:39 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DRGMr-0003MU-N0 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:16:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262172AbVD1VVs (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:21:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262175AbVD1VVs (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:21:48 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:54921 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262172AbVD1VVp (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:21:45 -0400 Received: from baythorne.infradead.org ([81.187.226.107] helo=[192.168.129.125]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DRGS4-0006QQ-DL; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:21:40 +0100 To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-1) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 11:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Anyway, the reason remote and local don't matter is that if somebody else > merges with me, and I just pull the result without having any changes in > my tree, we just "fast-forward" to that other side, because otherwise you > can never "converge" on anything (people merging each others trees would > always create a new commit, for no good reason). > > What does that mean? It means that my local tree now became the _remote_ > parent, even though it was always local to my tree. Hmm, that's true; albeit unfortunate. Still, using the date isn't any better. It'll give results which are about as random as just sorting by the sha1 of each parent. Yes, the ordering of the parents in a merge is probably meaningless in the general case, but so is the date. The best we could probably do, from a theoretical standpoint, is to look at the paths via each parent to a common ancestor, and look at how many of the commits on each path were done by the same committer. Even that isn't ideal, and it's probably fairly expensive -- but it's pointless to pretend we can infer anything from _either_ the dates or the ordering of the parents in a merge. -- dwmw2