From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Importing Mozilla CVS into git Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <9e4733910606011521n106f8f24s6c7053ce51e3791e@mail.gmail.com> <9e4733910606011759t7c828a50gc4a6b45d92d2b344@mail.gmail.com> <7vac8wdpr5.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 02 17:54:06 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 1FmByH-0006Kd-Hy for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:53:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932479AbWFBPxs (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:53:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932495AbWFBPxs (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:53:48 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:20908 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932479AbWFBPxs (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:53:48 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k52Frf2g028121 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:53:41 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k52FreKK012563; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:53:40 -0700 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7vac8wdpr5.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.75__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.135 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > You're much better off using "gitk --all" if you want to see the result, > > the "show-branch" this is really broken. It is using the old algorithm > > that we used to use for "git-rev-tree", and got rid of about a year ago > > there in favour of git-rev-list ;) > > Are you sure about it? My recollection is it uses the > merge-base logic, naturally enhanced for multiple heads. Well, it's all the same algorithm, where just the bit usage differs. git-rev-tree is slightly closer, if only because the original git-merge-base only did two heads, if I recall correctly (while git-rev-tree did 16 - the ability of git-show-branch to do 29 came from just using all the free bits rather than the high bits like rev-tree did) > And enhancing it to support more than one int wide bitmap should > not be too difficult, although looking at the output would be > very taxing for human eye, so I do not know if it is worth it. Yeah, I don't think there is any reason to really support it. If you have more than a few heads, you really do need the graphical version to see what is going on, and git-show-branch doesn't buy you anything. Linus