Srinidhi Kaushik <shrinidhi.kaushik@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Junio, > > On 10/02/2020 09:41, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Srinidhi Kaushik <shrinidhi.kaushik@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> We should not call `in_merge_bases_many()` repeatedly: there is a much >> >> better API for that: `get_reachable_subset()`. >> > >> > Perfect. I wasn't aware of this. >> >> This is possibly a piece of misinformation. in_merge_bases_many() >> is designed to be callable more than once. get_reachable_subset() >> may be an overkill as we only are interested in a single "is this >> one an ancestor of any of these?", not "which ones among these are >> ancestors of the other set?". > > Noted; even though "get_reachable_subset()" and "in_merge_bases_many()" > (after the commit-graph fix) return the same result, I suppose the > latter was designed for this specific use-case. Yes, in_merge_bases_many() was invented first in 4c4b27e8 (commit.c: add in_merge_bases_many(), 2013-03-04) for this exact use case. For use cases where callers have multiple "these may be ancestors" candidates, instead of having to iterate over them and calling in_merge_bases_many() multiple times, get_reachable_subset() was added much later at fcb2c076 (commit-reach: implement get_reachable_subset, 2018-11-02). > OK. Shall I update the next set by reverting the "disable commit-graph" > change, s/list/array/ and leaving the rest as is -- if we decide to go > forward with "in_merge_bases_many()", that is? Yes, that would be the ideal endgame. What I pushed out to 'seen' has the removal of "disable" bit as a SQUASH??? commit at the tip, but not s/list/array renaming. Thanks.
