Re: [PATCH 0/3] "git name-rev --weight"

From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Aug 30, 2012, 07:06 UTC
Message-ID: <068F712399864538B59054590881E19C@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <1346275044-10171-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com>

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:17 PM

Show 8 quoted lines

> So here is an attempt to teach "name-rev" a mode that tries to base
> its name on oldest tag that can reach the commit.  It needs the
> reset_revision_walk() call recently added to the revision traversal
> API, and applies to bcc0a3e (v1.7.11-rc0~111^2~2) or newer.
>
> Note that this can benefit from caching, as the "weight" of the tag
> (rather, the commit that is tagged) will never change once a history
> is made, but that part is left as an exercise to the reader.

Is "--weight" the right term to use for the user (cli) interface? Wouldn't '--oldest' (or similar) be a better statement of what is desired (absent clock skew).

While 'weight' may be a good internal technical description it didn't convey to me what was being sought (maybe -- deepest'?).

Show 21 quoted lines

>
> It correctly names 0136db586c in the kernel history as based on
> v3.5-rc1 as tags/v3.5-rc1~83^2~81^2~76, not on v3.6-rc1, as we saw
> on the list recently.
>
> Once it is verified to operate correctly and updated to perform
> properly, we can start passing --weight when "describe --contains"
> runs the command.
>
> Junio C Hamano (3):
>  name-rev: lose unnecessary typedef
>  name_rev: clarify when a new tip-name is assigned to a commit
>  name-rev: --weight option (WIP)
>
> builtin/name-rev.c | 142 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> -- 
> 1.7.12.285.ga3d5fc0
>