Re: history damage in linux.git

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

 



On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I actually think the best name for aed06b9 is probably:
>
>   v3.13-rc1~65^2^2~42

Sounds likely. I don't know how to find that best match without a
complete rewrite, though.

My recent patch that got

  v3.13-rc2~32^2^2~47

comes close to that, and the complexity is similar but the numbers are
actually smaller, so I guess my heuristic did indeed find a "simpler"
name, but yes, the one based on 3.13-rc1 would definitely be the
better one.

> which I found by picking the oldest tag from "git tag --contains" and
> plugging it into "git describe --match".

Yeah, so you basically did the "let's figure out minimal inclusion" by hand.

> Sadly, neither git's internal
> version-sorting nor GNU's "sort -V" knows that "v1.0-rc1" comes before
> "v1.0", so I had to rely on "--sort=taggerdate".

I'm not seeing the "sadly".

I think "--sort=taggerdate" is pretty much the only sane sort there is
for tags, unless you do a true and full topological one (ie sort based
on by how many commits that tag encompasses, but also by how each tag
contains another tag).

              Linus
--
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]