From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 026B138BDA9 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 20:59:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768942792; cv=none; b=LqdNDf2HujqfKX4yiKDX6Rj93mq8OEpN1A9SK2qxkPcbW7cxlEvruxIjscTTBgfbC155pEilR4AlUhfPIw0UGlv9iv7N1KJBjmWcd0E4ix/HkJTDfoXkcsC1TMXdaKm0cCBCt7cZ7AbchQWFikMDrOocrR3xsVywen9hhF2dxLY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768942792; c=relaxed/simple; bh=whEF5h0Ip2hj7eHo9ECR4Dlt70nbHBiptT3IPB5VGM4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hLIqE+XXm9I4wMtrF5mRyW98vmfYD+jumHKwvoAhGUMPwC3G9Dt0f/ED56uChkLyeUMUz05/32cPbVgIyrk/ufchZ3pgdQ+4J1SBeylTgoKfStgRiT9cbmQvXWO0NGlOMpUWZSPnl3Af1KwVhnqnNeTKwOQ/msjVBZ9Ku1ucItw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=Nk43kJXe; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=LJvMgPyB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Nk43kJXe"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="LJvMgPyB" Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC3E7A0113; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:59:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:59:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1768942788; x=1769029188; bh=DLhcN3lhU7 p1E4oJ2WAoaek4a3r8W/aX483EfB7P1AM=; b=Nk43kJXeaUEQrJRZHe+cv8l03o AAbqjfeRF9tLITE6Ya5WyDSBpxB7Md/W/A4icjYrud2Sm3NaCSX1YmT8LmreM54k j/kM2yj3fAemWMRN0g8F0XWQsLQyY/M56m3uvluKBcpOqfUmhCnvg2ERXM9dYUAN NJPlio8ewewCtctzWyblWzPWvXO6ESf/eUvxH5HnnO/gg8kKuU7Ka6xizhGmjwit 5jZNa3VfS6All2wbhYSB2Q8Il23nH55G/2PloNrBSx+SOuttf1157cezFibm3s08 yaUyZ3TDwodCdD3k91xPYDuywZWUpRHiL4KD8Qyeyckagbjm/tyyLZlzdOkw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1768942788; x=1769029188; bh=DLhcN3lhU7p1E4oJ2WAoaek4a3r8W/aX483 EfB7P1AM=; b=LJvMgPyBg8X0B8DKcxnoaHSJdF4Bu84VJuGPbSpt/oRFlCYVn1p Jo0Z61lEuLwmBuuw8vrFadrwHALRZIfEvd4vefETaqiHmKlLInyph+WjHrokhR7w CcRUKZo3S/8QFAtjknPUhq1v2aI3WQF5g4SOJVNEi7licBvW5p2V1UQUFvOdHKnq aN8edSpj1pED6zb2lxe7aryuN5Y+p6+r3j6WKXsfNOtyJ60JzoRiVVP8VKZzuzoj non6+73awtDQZydxRx8Pwc/g1ycf3GRBEbezRLaSYmgWqEFDawQa1vnfcTB7P7Sd /Ts2qiLbYfnFXkIPqM+yw4qwx3N2yuAUUeQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgddugedugeefucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepjedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprh gtphhtthhopehgihhtghhithhgrggughgvthesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthho pehsrghmohgpphhoghgrtghnihhksehtqddvrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkh hsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehmvgesthhtrgihlhhorhhrrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohep jhhohhgrnhhnvghsrdhstghhihhnuggvlhhinhesghhmgidruggvpdhrtghpthhtohepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:59:47 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: git@vger.kernel.org Cc: Samo =?utf-8?Q?Poga=C4=8Dnik?= via GitGitGadget , Samo =?utf-8?Q?Poga=C4=8Dnik?= , Patrick Steinhardt , Taylor Blau , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] shallow: set borders which are all reachable after clone shallow since In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 24 Nov 2025 16:43:33 -0800") References: Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:59:46 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Junio C Hamano writes: >> ... >> The modified implementation of a generic shallow boundary finder >> based on rev-list ensures that all shallow border commits are reachable >> also after being grafted. This is achieved by inspecting all parents >> of each initial border commit candidate. The border commit candidate >> is set border only when all its parents wern't on the initial list of >> candidates. Otherwise the border commit candidate is not set as border >> however its parents that weren't on the list of candidates are set as >> borders. > > It is a minor point, but there are "boundary" and "border" used more > or less interchangeably in the proposed commit log message, and > would make the readers wonder if there are differences (I do not > think we use the word "border" anywhere in our documentation). It > is minor as we do not have such mixture in the end-user facing part > of the documentation with this patch. > > I'll let those (cc'ed) who may be more familiar with, or, at least > have more code than I have in, the shallow infrastructure to comment > on the way the updated code uses the revision machinery. After this exchange, the topic has been dormant for almost full two months. As I do not deal with shallow clones myself, even though I understand that some folks rely on it working, I'd really prefer to see somebody who are familiar with the underlying logic to review this patch if we were to move forward with it. Thanks.