From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Stephen R. van den Berg" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] revision.c: really honor --first-parent Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 13:10:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20080514111034.GA29387@cuci.nl> References: <1210547651-32510-1-git-send-email-hjemli@gmail.com> <1210605156-22926-1-git-send-email-hjemli@gmail.com> <20080513201522.GA11485@cuci.nl> <8c5c35580805131343kc115df6yd7ce3281fb3e6171@mail.gmail.com> <7vej85suc2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080514103454.GA28610@cuci.nl> <8c5c35580805140354s62301343n62f8319b1853bfbd@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , nanako3@bluebottle.com, git@vger.kernel.org To: Lars Hjemli X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 14 13:11:39 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JwEtL-0005rp-J2 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 14 May 2008 13:11:28 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755590AbYENLKf (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 07:10:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754876AbYENLKf (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 07:10:35 -0400 Received: from aristoteles.cuci.nl ([212.125.128.18]:36848 "EHLO aristoteles.cuci.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754856AbYENLKf (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 07:10:35 -0400 Received: by aristoteles.cuci.nl (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1D1DF5461; Wed, 14 May 2008 13:10:34 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8c5c35580805140354s62301343n62f8319b1853bfbd@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Lars Hjemli wrote: >On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote: >> So, I'd say, since the current code does not and cannot work reliably >> for anyone specifically using --first-parent (with every merge >> encountered, the probability of correctness is multiplied by 0.5 at >> most/least), you are going to do them a favour anyway by fixing the code, >> then why not simplify the convolution and make the code rock-steady (and >> implement my patch)? >The current 'next' branch in git.git contains your patch with my fixup >on top and I believe this fixes _both_ the original issue with >first-parent (thanks to your patch) and the issue Nanako discovered >(thanks to my patch). Am I missing something? Probably not. I didn't check 'next' yet, since neither mine nor your patch had been Acked on the list (I guess it shows that I don't know the procedures here all too well yet). -- Sincerely, srb@cuci.nl Stephen R. van den Berg. What if there were no hypothetical questions?