From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: kernel.org now has gitweb installed Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:50:07 -0700 Message-ID: <42715A8F.8010803@zytor.com> 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> <1114723214.2734.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , Petr Baudis , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 28 23:46:18 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DRGow-0006XS-SE for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:45:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262266AbVD1Vur (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:50:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262267AbVD1Vur (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:50:47 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([209.128.68.124]:19357 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262266AbVD1Vum (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:50:42 -0400 Received: from [172.27.0.18] (c-67-169-23-106.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.23.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by terminus.zytor.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3SLo7NF024159 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:50:09 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.3.2 (X11/20050324) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1114723214.2734.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on terminus.zytor.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org David Woodhouse wrote: > > 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. > Perhaps the right thing to do is to draw a graph instead? -hpa