On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:40:03 -0800 Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for the review! > > This series was written with the mindset, that a user would only ever > want to describe bad blobs. (bad in terms of file size, unwanted content, etc) > > With the --reverse you only see the *first* introduction of said blob, > so finding out if it was re-introduced is still not as easy, whereas "when > was this blob last used" which is what the current algorithm does, covers > that case better. How does "when was this blob last used" cover reintroduction better? If you want to check all introductions, then you'll need something like what I describe (quoted below). > > Alternatively, to me, it seems that listing commits that *introduces* > > the blob (that is, where it references the blob, but none of its parents > > do) would be the best way. That would then be independent of traversal > > order (and we would no longer need to find a tag etc. to tie the blob > > to). > > What if it is introduced multiple times? (either in multiple competing > side branches; or introduced, reverted and re-introduced?) Then all of them should be listed. > > If we do that, it seems to me that there is a future optimization that > > could get the first commit to the user more quickly - once a commit > > without the blob and a descendant commit with the blob is found, that > > interval can be bisected, so that the first commit is found in O(log > > number of commits) instead of O(commits). But this can be done later. > > bisection assumes that we only have one "event" going from good to > bad, which doesn't hold true here, as the blob can be there at different > occasions of the history. Yes, bisection would only be useful to output one commit more quickly. We will still need to exhaustively search for all commits if the user needs more than one.
