Re: [PATCH 3/3] name-rev: --weight option (WIP)

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

 



Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> I wonder if you can
>> define the weight as a recursive function of the parents.
>
> I do not think we can.  A merge Z between X (that has N commits
> behind it) and Y (that has M commits behind it) has at most N+M+1
> commits behind it (counting itself), but we cannot tell how many
> among these N and M are shared.

You can theoretically take all the merge bases between X and Y,
magically come up with the "weight" of a fictitious merge across
these merge bases, and subtract that number from N+M to arrive at
the weight of Z, I suppose, but it is not clear what an efficient
implementation of that "magically" part looks like.  I think that is
where we stopped when we tried to optimize the "rev-list --bisect"
node weighting logic; it punts handling the merges, and only
optimizes single strand of pearls on top of a merge with a known
weight.
--
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]