Re: [PATCH] revision: --include-diversions adds helpful merges

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 8, 2020, 01:39 UTC
Message-ID: <5f1c6868-303c-ccc1-553e-e54d0fa8e24f@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqv9mapxw9.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On 4/7/2020 9:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>     This --include-diversions option could use a better name.
> 
> True, but I do not think of a better (or for that matter a worse)
> one.  
> 
> As a new feature, I think this is a reasonable thing to want,
> especially it is in line with the push in the past few years to
> treat the first parent history specially.
> 
> I wonder how this would interact with the ancestry-path option?
> That one also, like the simplify-merges option, needs a limited
> traversal, and if this new mode can do without a limited traversal
> (in other words, the output can be done incrementally from the tip)
> and achieve something similar to what these other options wanted to
> show, that would be great.

You're right. I briefly considered the --ancestry-path option before realizing that would get a huge set of commits (for example: every topic based on the branch after the pull request was merged).

The --include-diversions works incrementally like simplified merges. Based on the implementation, it would not change the results when added to a --full-history query. This makes sense: a diversion would appear in the --full-history results, anyway.

It is worth adding tests for the combination with --ancestry-path and --simplify-merges, as the --include-diversions option would add results to those queries.

Thanks, -Stolee