From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Bizarre missing changes (git bug?) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <8502DF7C-5303-49E8-8C67-F837343E2F0C@gmail.com> <200807260512.40088.zippel@linux-m68k.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Tim Harper , git@vger.kernel.org To: Roman Zippel X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 28 01:22:54 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KNFZj-0007QQ-S9 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:22:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750851AbYG0XVv (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:21:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752594AbYG0XVv (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:21:51 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:34975 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750843AbYG0XVv (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:21:51 -0400 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.55]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id m6RNL4jO021689 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:21:05 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id m6RNL3rR009153; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:21:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.405 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4-osdl_revision__1.47__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 140.211.169.13 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Roman Zippel wrote: > > Why are you dismissing what I wrote without even giving it a second > thought? I didn't bother with the initial example, because it's so > simple, that it's no real challenge. Did you try it? It really shouldn't be any simpler than anything else. And I dismissed what you wrote because the example you _did_ state was about something else entirely (ie apparently some giggle bug that simplifies things incorrectly). > What did I do wrong that you rebuff me based on this secondary problem > (which I'm quite aware of, because it was me who mentioned in first place) > and giving the primary problem (which is the missing history) no > attention? It's not missing history. It's all there in --full-history. The default is to give a reasonable simplification, and I told you what the simplification was, and it's perfectly conceptually fine - AND IT IS MUCH MORE EFFICIENT than the alternatives. So I'm not seeing your point what-so-ever. My point is: - with full-history, you have it all, but it's useless in practice - without full-history, it's useful in practice You never gave any examples otherwise. Linus