Hello, On 10/02/2020 13:14, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Srinidhi Kaushik <shrinidhi.kaushik@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > 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). Got it. Thanks for the detailed explanation and reference. > > 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. Alright, I will add those changes in the next set. Also, I saw in the other thread that you tested commit-graph fix on this series and the tests are passing -- thanks for checking. -- Srinidhi Kaushik
