Re: [PATCH] Additional merge-base tests

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> >> This is a good demonstration that merge-base may not give you
> >> minimal set for pathological cases.  If you want to be through
> >> you could traverse everything to make sure we do not say 'S' is
> >> relevant, but that is quite expensive, so I think there will
> >> always be artifacts of horizon effect like this no matter how
> >> you try to catch it (didn't I keep saying that already?).
> >
> > The problem is in mark_reachable_commits(); it is either superfluous
> > or it needs to parse_commit() those commits that haven't been parsed
> > yet that it needs to traverse.
> 
> Yes, you could traverse everything.  But that is not practical.
> We have known that the clean-up pass has this horizon effect,
> and it is a compromise.

We could introduce a time.maximumSkew variable, and just walk only 
that much further when traversing the commits.

So, if you do not trust your clients to have a proper ntp setup, just say 
"I trust my peers to be off at most 1 day". That would save lots vs 
traverse-everything.

Ciao,
Dscho

-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]