Hi Junio, On Thu, 19 Jan 2023, Junio C Hamano wrote: > These comments from GGG bot > > https://github.com/git/git/pull/1435#issuecomment-1386301994 > https://github.com/git/git/pull/1435#issuecomment-1386302018 > > add 'next' and 'seen' labels, citing merges e3ead5f and c52b021 > respectively, but these merges are of a topic that has little to do > with this pull request (#1435). Is this expected? Since I could not make `amlog` work reliably for GitGitGadget (and you will recall that it was not for lack of trying, not by _any_ stretch of imagination, I really, really put in a few weeks and it just turned out that there was no way to come up with a 100% correct record of mappings between patches on the Git mailing list and the commits in git/git), the best I could do was to use `range-diff` to identify which patches made it upstream, and what the upstream OIDs are. What you see in action is that this is imperfect. Because in the absence of actual git/git commits that correspond to the GitGitGadget Pull Requests' commits, `range-diff` will even identify replacements or alternative patches as the git/git commits corresponding to the PR. I don't see how this could be made robust without forcing you to adopt different processes than you are using right now. Ciao, Johannes
