From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin Langhoff (CatalystIT)" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2] format-patch: use clear_commit_marks() instead of some adhocery Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:15:25 +1200 Message-ID: <44A06A8D.7080202@catalyst.net.nz> References: <46a038f90606261520k7df8cb3ci7a4a609644e0be12@mail.gmail.com> <46a038f90606261550p145b20a6gbe960e0abc16e8a4@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Martin Langhoff , git@vger.kernel.org, junkio@cox.net X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 27 01:17:08 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 1Fv0KI-0002jQ-Qr for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:17:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933267AbWFZXQA (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:16:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933287AbWFZXP6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:15:58 -0400 Received: from godel.catalyst.net.nz ([202.78.240.40]:13996 "EHLO mail1.catalyst.net.nz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933248AbWFZXPa (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:15:30 -0400 Received: from leibniz.catalyst.net.nz ([202.78.240.7] helo=[192.168.2.69]) by mail1.catalyst.net.nz with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.50) id 1Fv0Ib-0003x3-42; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:15:21 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Johannes Schindelin In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin wrote: > The funny thing is: I did something to account for the old syntax, but > only if you specified _one_ ref, not _two_. It would be easy, but is it > needed? (I.e. are your fingers so trained on it?) My fingers are retrainable ;-) >>There is something strange though. I have a repo with ~150 pending >>patches to push, of which git-cherry spots ~100 as already merged >>upstream. So the old git-format-patch.sh would spit 50 patches, and the >>initial C version would do 150. >> >>Now this version gives me 50 patches, regardless of >>--ignore-if-in-upstream. Is that expected? > > > Hell, no! Something is really wrong there. > > What does "git-rev-list their..my | wc" say? Ok, I cooked the numbers up a bit, it was 60 total, with 10 merged upstream. Here's what I have today: $ git-cherry svnhead..master | grep -c '+' 52 $ git-rev-list svnhead..master | wc -l 61 $ ~/local/git/git-format-patch.sh -o .patchesold svnhead master ... $ ls .patchesold | wc -l 52 $ ~/local/git/git format-patch -o .patchesnewall svnhead..master ... $ ls .patchesnewall/ | wc -l 53 $ ~/local/git/git format-patch --ignore-if-in-upstream -o .patchesnewignore svnhead..master ... $ ls .patchesnewignore | wc -l 52 This is a public repo -- master tracks origin which is http://git.catalyst.net.nz/git/elgg-r2.git#nzvleportfolio svnhead is http://git.catalyst.net.nz/git/elgg-r2.git#svnhead cheers, m -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin @ Catalyst .Net .NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/ PHYS: Level 2, 150-154 Willis St OFFICE: +64(4)916-7224 MOB: +64(21)364-017 Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler - Einstein -----------------------------------------------------------------------