"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > It's not entirely clear to me that this is any better than simply > randomly picking a commit from the list of plausible commits -- in other > words, eliminate the commits we can totally rule out, and then just pick > a random commit among the list of plausible commits. This is not > *quite* as crazy as it sounds; it has the advantage of being an > extremely simple algorithm which shouldn't have any pathological behaviours. That is essentially what Christian's patch does. It does not try to go away from untestable commits in topological space. Instead, when we find that the commit with the best "goodness" value is known to be untestable, we step away from that commit by some alternating distance _in the goodness value space_ (which does not have much to do with how commit ancestry topology is laid out). Viewed in the topology space, it is quite similar to picking a different commit randomly, except for a very special case where the remaining history is completely linear, in which case the goodness value space and ancestry topology have a direct correlation. That special case, and the deterministic hence repeatable nature of the algorithm, are the two main advantages over picking a completely random commit among the list of plausible commits. -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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