Daniel BarkalowOn Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:17:12AM CEST, I got a letter > where Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> told me that... > > > I can think of. Are you sure there isn't another path to 5b53d3? > > I'm not. Actually there well might be. > > I think merge-base should never take a path which is effectively > "upside-down" when a straight "upside" one is available. > > Hmm. So what I depended on for merge-base was that when doing it on A > and B and A is predecessor of B, then it will always just return A. I > will perhaps need to abuse rev-tree somehow for this then, it looks.
It is currently optimizing for the shortest longer path, but I guess it should optimize for the shortest shorter path (i.e., the 0-length path from A to itself always wins).
On the other hand, the date-based comparison (which you'd get with the version I sent yesterday with [2/4] and [4/4]) would give you the most recent common ancestor, which would necessarily avoid this situation.
Do you want to go with the date-based approach, or should I work out a shortest shorter path algorithm?
-Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*