Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] merge-base: add --merge-child option
- From
Kevin Bracey <kevin@bracey.fi>
- Date
- May 12, 2013, 17:29 UTC
- Message-ID
- <518FD182.5020606@bracey.fi>
- In-Reply-To
- <20130512165829.GM2299@serenity.lan>
On 12/05/2013 19:58, John Keeping wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> > With the patch below, the --ancestry-path version drops to under 2 > seconds. > > I'm not sure if this is a good idea though. It helps me say "I know > nothing that isn't on the ancestry path can be patch-identical, so don't > bother checking if it is" but it regresses users who want the full > cherry-pick check while only limiting the output.
Hmm. Should an excluded commit be a valid comparator? Is it sensible/correct to show a left commit as "=" to a right commit that has been excluded by the revision specifiers? Doesn't sound right to me.
I'm not convinced that there's a valid use-case that you're regressing here. If --ancestry-path is being misused (the user's assertion that non-ancestry doesn't matter is wrong) the "error" of not noting culled patch-identical commits is nothing compared to the fact we're already totally omitting the non-identical ones.
Kevin