From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] format-patch: dereference tags with --ignore-if-in-upstream Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:47:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20150601174712.GA18364@peff.net> References: <1433120593-186980-1-git-send-email-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: "brian m. carlson" , git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder , Bruce Korb To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 01 19:47:26 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YzTo3-0004hn-GC for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 19:47:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753774AbbFARrR (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:47:17 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:39004 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753726AbbFARrP (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:47:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 16644 invoked by uid 102); 1 Jun 2015 17:47:14 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:47:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 32506 invoked by uid 107); 1 Jun 2015 17:47:14 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:47:14 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:47:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 10:44:21AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Shouldn't you ensure o1 and o2 are commits here? > > Heh, I should have read the remainder of the thread before > responding. > > How about doing it this way? We know and trust that existing > revision traversal machinery is doing the right thing, and it is > only that the clear_commit_marks() calls are botched. Yeah, I think this matches the recommendation I gave in the last round. I do still think we could get rid of this "second" traversal entirely in favor of using "--cherry", but that is a much larger topic. Even if somebody wants to pursue that, the immediate fix should look like this. -Peff