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 14:52:48 -0700 Message-ID: <42715B30.6010705@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 23:49:03 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DRGrF-0006jB-7Y for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:47:41 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262269AbVD1VxJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:53:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262272AbVD1VxJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:53:09 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([209.128.68.124]:22429 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262269AbVD1VxD (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:53:03 -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 j3SLqn4p024182 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:52:49 -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=-5.1 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. > I thought about this for a few seconds (I really should do that more often...) and realized what it is you want: you want a primary search criterion which is "when did event X become visible to me", where "me" in this case is the web tool. That is not repository information, but it is perfectly possible for the webtool to be aware of what it has previously seen and when. And yes, this ordering is clearly different for each observer. -hpa