From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 03:49:51 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] merge-base Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > I wrote a pretty dumb program that will find some common ancestor for a > pair of commits. It finds the one which is closest to one of the commits > by number of generations. This is, at least, not strictly worse than any > other common ancestor, at least (like picking the original release would > be). > > It wouldn't be too hard to do this much with rev-tree, but should be > easier to extend. I agree. But I did the silly "common revision tracking" part slightly differently and in particular I already made fsck and rev-tree use the same exact code. Also, I don't see why you did the "common parent" thing as part of the "library", since that really does seem to be a very specific to this problem, and neither fsck nor rev-tree really wants it. Also, the date parsing really is a separate issue from the revision tracking (fsck does not want date parsing, but rev-tool does), so I think you might want to do for date parsing what I just did for the revision.h thing? No point in tying them together. So could I ask you to re-factor it and base it on my current tree? Make the "merge-base" program have that common parent thing in it, and factor out the common date parsing into "parse-date.c" or something? Linus