Re: [PATCH] Fixes git-cherry algorithmic flaws

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

 



Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxx> writes:

> Hmm, well, what's curious is that the documentation says
>
> 	Every commit with a changeset that doesn't exist in the other branch
> 	has its id (sha1) reported, prefixed by a symbol.  Those existing only
> 	in the <upstream> branch are prefixed with a minus (-) sign, and those
> 	that only exist in the <head> branch are prefixed with a plus (+)
> 	symbol.
>
> which is in contradiction of Ilpo's description of the old algorithm
> (and also your description of it). It would seem he just wants to fix it
> according to the documented behaviour.
>
> I guess the documentation is what's broken then?

Ah I did not realize that, but yes the documentation is
incorrect.

I wonder if we can kill it by introducing a new rev notation and
using regular rev-list family of commands instead.

What we want here is a way to say "give me commits that are in B
but not in A, but before returning a commit see if there is an
equivalent change in the set of commits that are in A but not in
B, and filter it out".

Time for "rev-list A....B"? ;-)



-
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

[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]