From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit: use a priority queue in merge base functions
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:16:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vy5kwowjd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120830214802.GB18636@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:48:03 -0400")
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> So the issue is that when you do a recursive merge with multiple bases,
> the order in which you visit the recursive bases is going to impact the
> exact conflicts you see.
Yeah, that explains it.
> So the test is not broken or racy, which is good. It is just testing
> something that is somewhat of an implementation detail. We could switch
> it to use test_tick, and then adjust the expected output to look for the
> expected conflict that git happens to generate in that case. But that is
> no better than the current behavior.
True.
> But I'm not sure there is a way to test what it wants to test (that we
> hit a conflict that involves one of the recursive merge bases) without
> relying on the implementation detail. So I'm inclined to just leave it
> in place.
OK.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-30 22:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-27 23:11 [PATCH 0/5] optimize fast-forward checks Junio C Hamano
2012-08-27 23:11 ` [PATCH 1/5] in_merge_bases(): support only one "other" commit Junio C Hamano
2012-08-27 23:12 ` [PATCH 2/5] receive-pack: use in_merge_bases() for fast-forward check Junio C Hamano
2012-08-27 23:12 ` [PATCH 3/5] http-push: " Junio C Hamano
2012-08-27 23:12 ` [PATCH 4/5] in_merge_bases(): omit unnecessary redundant common ancestor reduction Junio C Hamano
2012-08-27 23:12 ` [PATCH 5/5] (BROKEN) get_merge_bases_many(): walk from many tips in parallel Junio C Hamano
2012-08-28 1:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-28 21:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-28 23:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-29 11:08 ` Jeff King
2012-08-29 11:10 ` [PATCH 1/2] basic priority queue implementation Jeff King
2012-08-29 11:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] commit: use a priority queue in merge base functions Jeff King
2012-08-29 16:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-29 20:53 ` Jeff King
2012-08-29 20:55 ` Jeff King
2012-08-29 21:00 ` Jeff King
2012-08-29 21:05 ` Jeff King
2012-08-30 12:54 ` Jeff King
2012-08-30 13:03 ` Jeff King
2012-08-30 13:24 ` Jeff King
2012-08-30 16:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-30 21:48 ` Jeff King
2012-08-30 22:16 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2012-08-30 16:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-30 21:31 ` Jeff King
2012-08-30 21:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-29 21:18 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7vy5kwowjd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=trast@student.ethz.ch \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).