On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 11:34 AM Calvin Wan <calvinwan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Are there any cases where a taggerdate heuristic would be useful now? > I'm having a hard time coming up with an example of such, so this > change looks very reasonable to me. Even if there existed such a case, > I would imagine it would be better solved using other heuristics rather > than checking the taggerdate since that was a very loose heuristic to > begin with. I'm currently only aware of cases where the heuristic hurts and none where it helps. I know it historically helped, but that was just a workaround to the algorithm being suboptimal. Since the algorithm has been fixed, I think the workaround can be shelved. > > diff --git a/builtin/name-rev.c b/builtin/name-rev.c > > index 15535e914a6..df50abcdeb9 100644 > > --- a/builtin/name-rev.c > > +++ b/builtin/name-rev.c > > @@ -113,9 +113,7 @@ static int is_better_name(struct rev_name *name, > > * based on the older tag, even if it is farther away. > > */ > > if (from_tag && name->from_tag) > > - return (name->taggerdate > taggerdate || > > - (name->taggerdate == taggerdate && > > - name_distance > new_distance)); > > + return name_distance > new_distance; > > Comment above this block should be updated to match the new logic. Good catch; will fix.
