Re: Trimming 'deadheads' (TREESAME 2nd parent) from revision walks?
- From
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 19, 2021, 23:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87k0jcb01k.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <YUeImAqA0SZAdA2R@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On Sun, Sep 19 2021, Jeff King wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 03:18:47PM +0100, Philip Oakley wrote: > >> Is there a method within `git rev-list` to trim side branch merges where >> the merge's tree is identical to the first parent's commit-tree? >> [...] >> From my reading of the `rev-list` manual this is similar to the <paths> >> TREESAME capability, but without specifying any paths (maybe just `.` ?). > > Yes, I'd just do "git log ." for this. I don't think there's another way > to trigger simplification. In try_to_simplify_commit(), we bail early > unless revs->prune is set, and that is set only by the presence of > pathspecs or by --simplify-by-decoration. > >> * Is there a proper term for the treesame condition of the commit-tree >> (as recorded in the commit object)? > > In a one-parent commit, I'd just call it an empty commit. For a merge, > it is really I'd probably call it an "ours" merge, since one obvious way > to get there is with "git merge -s ours" (of course you can also just > resolve all conflicts in favor of one parent). I don't know of another > name (besides treesame, of course, but that generally implies a > particular scope of interest given by a pathspec).
Isn't it a "theirs" merge, not "ours"? Per the description Philip has:
In the Git-for Windows repository, the previous releases are
'deadheaded' by merging with the upstream git, and simply taking the
upstream's tree unconditionally[...]I.e. if you're taking your tree unconditionally it's -s ours, but -s theirs for theirs. Except of course for the small matter of us not having a "-s theirs" yet.
I had a WIP patch a while ago for a "-s theirs -X N", for what sounds like a similar use-case: https://lore.kernel.org/git/87sh7sdtc1.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/