Re: [PATCH 1/3] revision: support tracking uninteresting commits

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: May 5, 2023, 17:30 UTC
Message-ID: <ZFU9Ra4br6NTi4Cg@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <7a0ea3d7-f67b-8f9d-f9ea-550fcc05108d@github.com>

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 09:59:32AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> It's interesting that it walked more commits than you wanted. I
> suppose it's somehow related to the boundary condition you're
> implying by enabling the construction of this list.
>
> Could you describe the situation where more commits are walked
> than you want? I imagine we can't actually stop at the boundary
> because we need to know that certain commits are actually reachable
> from those boundary commits.

I honestly cannot remember, and was unable to reproduce it when I reworked the substantive portion of this series last night.

For posterity, Stolee and I had an off-list discussion yesterday where he walked me through his suggestion to implement the boundary search via a straightforward revision walk, instead of grafting onto cherry-picked components of the revision internals.

It works great, and I have been unable to trick it into "walking too much".

Thanks, Taylor