From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mansfield Subject: Re: Fix branch ancestry calculation Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:45:45 -0500 Message-ID: <44240619.20103@dm.cobite.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Mansfield , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 24 15:45:51 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FMnXx-0008UV-PG for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:45:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751511AbWCXOpr (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:45:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751515AbWCXOpr (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:45:47 -0500 Received: from iris.cobite.com ([208.222.83.2]:60378 "EHLO email-pri.cobite.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751511AbWCXOpq (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:45:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (iris.cobite.com [127.0.0.1]) by email-pri.cobite.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF08197D5D; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:45:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from email-pri.cobite.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (iris.cobite.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02962-04; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:45:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by email-pri.cobite.com (Postfix, from userid 45000) id 76BE1987B8; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:45:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from [208.222.80.105] (gandalf.cobite.com [208.222.80.105]) by email-pri.cobite.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B4A98304; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:45:27 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313) To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cobite.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds wrote: > Some branches don't get any ancestors at all, because their ancestor gets > a "dotcount" value of 0, and are thus not considered any better than not > having any ancestor. That's obviously wrong. Even a zero-dot-count > ancestor is better than having none at all. > > This fixes the issue by making not having an ancestor branch have a > goodness value of -1, avoiding the problem (because even a zero dot-count > will be considered better). > > Alternatively, the special-case for the "1.1.1.1" revision should be > removed (or made to imply a dot-count of 1). > Thanks for this. I'll look at bundling this and some miscellaneous other stuff this weekend (pray to gods for rain so I can stay in all weekend ;-). Anyway, I'd like to nail down some of the other nagging ancestry/branch point problems if possible. David