Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] revision: allow --ancestry-path to take an argument
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
Show 15 quoted lines
> > Optional: Besides that, from what I can tell, sometimes the C commits
> > themselves are marked with ANCESTRY_PATH (when they are explicitly
> > specified) and sometimes they are not (when they are not explicitly
> > specified). It's not a bug here, but it might be worth handling that in
> > the ancestry_path_need_bottoms codepath (instead of explicitly setting
> > TMP_MARK on the bottoms in limit_to_ancestry() - that way, I think we
> > can also use ANCESTRY_PATH instead of TMP_MARK throughout the ancestry
> > path codepaths, but I haven't tested it), at least to prevent possible
> > future bugs.
>
> That sounds like you're trying to duplicate the bug in my first
> attempt at this patch. If you try to coalesce ANCESTRY_PATH and
> TMP_MARK, then you not only get all descendants of C, you also get all
> descendants of any ancestor of C, which defeats the whole point of my
> changes.
> It's true that I don't mark implicit C commits with ANCESTRY_PATH, but
> those are always bottom commits that are the excluded end of a range
> anyway. While those could be marked without causing problems, it
> would always be a waste of effort.