From: Stephen R. van den Berg Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 11:10:34 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] revision.c: really honor --first-parent Message-ID: <20080514111034.GA29387@cuci.nl> In-Reply-To: <8c5c35580805140354s62301343n62f8319b1853bfbd@mail.gmail.com> Lars Hjemli wrote: >On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote: >> So, I'd say, since the current code does not and cannot work reliably >> for anyone specifically using --first-parent (with every merge >> encountered, the probability of correctness is multiplied by 0.5 at >> most/least), you are going to do them a favour anyway by fixing the code, >> then why not simplify the convolution and make the code rock-steady (and >> implement my patch)? >The current 'next' branch in git.git contains your patch with my fixup >on top and I believe this fixes _both_ the original issue with >first-parent (thanks to your patch) and the issue Nanako discovered >(thanks to my patch). Am I missing something? Probably not. I didn't check 'next' yet, since neither mine nor your patch had been Acked on the list (I guess it shows that I don't know the procedures here all too well yet). -- Sincerely, srb@cuci.nl Stephen R. van den Berg. What if there were no hypothetical questions?