Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Git 2.26 used protocol v2 as its default protocol, but soon after >> release, users noticed that the protocol v2 negotiation code was prone >> to fail when fetching from some remotes that are far ahead of others >> (such as linux-next.git versus Linus's linux.git). That has been >> fixed by 0b07eecf6ed (Merge branch 'jt/v2-fetch-nego-fix', >> 2020-05-01), > > Should we really mention the merge here? Is it because the "fix" is > spread across two commits? Why not say the tip of the topic? Strictly speaking, the tip of the topic is sufficient. You can use a third-party script "git when-merged" to ask "which exact merge gave us this commit in the mainline?" when given only the tip of the topic, which is what I often end up doing. Writing the merge result reduces the need for doing the same "reverse" look-up. On the other hand, going the other way to find the then-current tip of the topic from the result of the merge is much easier; you can ask the merge result what its second parent is. The rest of your review I can entirely agree with. Thanks, always, for a prompt and well written review.
