jnareb@xxxxxxxxx (Jakub Narębski) writes: > I suspect that there are cases (with date skew) where corrected commit > date gives better performance than committer date heuristics, and I am > quite sure that generation number v2 can give better performance in case > where paint_down_to_common() uses generation numbers. Thanks for a well reasoned review. > > ................................................................. > > Here begins separate second change, which is not put into separate > commit because it is fairly tightly connected to the change described > above. It would be good idea, in my opinion, to add a sentence that > explicitely marks this switch, for example: > > This change accidentally broke fragile t6404-recursive-merge test. > t6404-recursive-merge setups a unique repository... > > Maybe with s/accidentaly/incidentally/. Also "setup" is not a verb. "... sets up a unique repository". > Or add some other way of connection those two parts of the commit > messages. > ... >> As this has already causes problems (as noted in 859fdc0 (commit-graph: >> define GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH, 2018-08-29)), we disable commit graph >> within t6404-recursive-merge. > > Very nice explanation. > > Perhaps in the future we could make this test less fragile. If "separate second change" is distracting, would it be an option to fix the test before this step, perhaps? Thanks.
