Re: [PATCH v9 1/3] push: add reflog check for "--force-if-includes"
- From
Srinidhi Kaushik <shrinidhi.kaushik@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 2, 2020, 20:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20201002205830.GD78209@mail.clickyotomy.dev>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqmu148jxu.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
Hello,
On 10/02/2020 13:14, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Srinidhi Kaushik <shrinidhi.kaushik@gmail.com> writes: > > Noted; even though "get_reachable_subset()" and "in_merge_bases_many()" > > (after the commit-graph fix) return the same result, I suppose the > > latter was designed for this specific use-case. > > Yes, in_merge_bases_many() was invented first in 4c4b27e8 (commit.c: > add in_merge_bases_many(), 2013-03-04) for this exact use case. For > use cases where callers have multiple "these may be ancestors" > candidates, instead of having to iterate over them and calling > in_merge_bases_many() multiple times, get_reachable_subset() was > added much later at fcb2c076 (commit-reach: implement > get_reachable_subset, 2018-11-02).
Got it. Thanks for the detailed explanation and reference.
Show 9 quoted lines
> > OK. Shall I update the next set by reverting the "disable commit-graph" > > change, s/list/array/ and leaving the rest as is -- if we decide to go > > forward with "in_merge_bases_many()", that is? > > Yes, that would be the ideal endgame. What I pushed out to 'seen' > has the removal of "disable" bit as a SQUASH??? commit at the tip, > but not s/list/array renaming. > > Thanks.
Alright, I will add those changes in the next set. Also, I saw in the other thread that you tested commit-graph fix on this series and the tests are passing -- thanks for checking.
-- Srinidhi Kaushik