From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04CEC33C8C for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 18:02:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49DF21744 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 18:02:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="JXWmb2T8" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728409AbgAGSCw (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2020 13:02:52 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:50712 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728365AbgAGSCv (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2020 13:02:51 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED522C7B1; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 13:02:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=KqSYLYrLDdHoD6obdekzRfeY/wA=; b=JXWmb2 T8vqr9GXasOaG6MoEyqXrNPPeXOzwpqVPW1QSTSbtfeZ0zcstgdjj3iVJD9pY7jQ hs7iPEpFm9NGYHFATrSrug8M6htVXrLngvuquyw3ToNBtIR+Q2S0hPAdTrGOQePj duN9IgbH0MV8ZPk5ReWChRcsNd7v6q9cSB6WI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=XyFN8WkmLIg34YFxOx9lYZBrCF9Edl// pWCHihubKSOO/npfJZnbVEO/Jg1DE2xjeWLTAgWuwlUDzI0FgdLwRdju7kF1czte 0Y5OuiXbWH/muuTfEuc6arlKzwXGWMzsGjZbYU2aLMbNvUbWUq2y6nYXUUg0lusw Rvon67SVa98= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5482B2C7B0; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 13:02:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B60082C7AF; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 13:02:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King , James Coglan Cc: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, brad@brad-smith.co.uk, sunshine@sunshineco.com, Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] t4215: add bigger graph collapse test References: <20200107153922.GC20591@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 10:02:48 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20200107153922.GC20591@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 7 Jan 2020 10:39:22 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EAC235E2-3177-11EA-AB1A-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 02:55:47PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> From: Derrick Stolee >> >> A previous test in t4215-log-skewed-merges.sh was added to demonstrate >> exactly the topology of a reported failure in "git log --graph". While >> investigating the fix, we realized that multiple edges that could >> collapse with horizontal lines were not doing so. > > Thanks for constructing this larger case. > > As for including this patch, I could take or leave it for now. I like > the idea of documenting things further, but unless it's marked > expect_failure, I don't think it's going to call anybody's attention > more than this thread already has. > > So I'd love to hear what James thinks should happen here, given that > it's an extension of his other work. But I'd just as soon punt on the > patch until we decide whether it _should_ change (and then either mark > it with expect_failure, or include the test along with a patch changing > the behavior). ... and nobody CC'ed the person from whom they want to hear opinion? ;-)