On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 14:49:58 -0400, rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Friday, September 22, 2023 2:44 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote: > >Yes. It is explained that the commit date stored is only to 1 second granularity. Since > >the commits are stored in commit-date, an equal commit date ends up "twisting" the > >history and traversing some ancestors of commits before the commits themsevles. > >This loses the "seen" bit tracking that is done and ends up labeling way more > >commits as "not part of" ancestors. By sleeping for a second, the commit dates can > >be totally ordered reliably. > > This is going to be awkward to resolve as time_t only resolves > (portably) to 1 second intervals. I still would prefer the resolution > to be path-based rather than time-based. I certainly agree, but I'm not sure of the best way of doing that. Do we create/load a commit graph and use that for resolving insertion order into the commit heap? --Ben
