Re: Is GGG mislabeling topics?

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Feb 2, 2023, 14:20 UTC
Message-ID: <52c9ed08-43c3-80c6-32f6-42209b799af6@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqpmba1ld4.fsf@gitster.g>

Hi Junio,

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> These comments from GGG bot
>
>     https://github.com/git/git/pull/1435#issuecomment-1386301994
>     https://github.com/git/git/pull/1435#issuecomment-1386302018
>
> add 'next' and 'seen' labels, citing merges e3ead5f and c52b021
> respectively, but these merges are of a topic that has little to do
> with this pull request (#1435).  Is this expected?

Since I could not make `amlog` work reliably for GitGitGadget (and you will recall that it was not for lack of trying, not by _any_ stretch of imagination, I really, really put in a few weeks and it just turned out that there was no way to come up with a 100% correct record of mappings between patches on the Git mailing list and the commits in git/git), the best I could do was to use `range-diff` to identify which patches made it upstream, and what the upstream OIDs are.

What you see in action is that this is imperfect. Because in the absence of actual git/git commits that correspond to the GitGitGadget Pull Requests' commits, `range-diff` will even identify replacements or alternative patches as the git/git commits corresponding to the PR.

I don't see how this could be made robust without forcing you to adopt different processes than you are using right now.

Ciao, Johannes