From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: history damage in linux.git Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:09:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20160421180932.GB12950@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20160421113004.GA3140@aepfle.de> <87lh473xic.fsf@linux-m68k.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Andreas Schwab , Olaf Hering , Git Mailing List To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 21 20:09:45 2016 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 1atJ2s-0002SQ-9M for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 20:09:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753924AbcDUSJg (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:09:36 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:53728 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753918AbcDUSJg (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:09:36 -0400 Received: (qmail 22251 invoked by uid 102); 21 Apr 2016 18:09:35 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:09:35 -0400 Received: (qmail 11729 invoked by uid 107); 21 Apr 2016 18:09:34 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:09:34 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:09:33 -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 Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:59:52AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > That said, I do think that a much bigger conceptual change that > actually does full traversal and be much more complicated might be the > only "correct" solution. > > So my patch is just a "improve heuristics" small fixlet rather than > something optimal. Yeah, I'd agree with both points. Unless somebody is planning to work on the bigger change in the near future, your patch is a strict improvement to the heuristic, and is worth applying. -Peff