Hi, On Fri, 3 May 2024, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 4:08 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It seems that Dscho was in agreement that format-patch's use case > > should try to be more aggressive at least back then. In the message > > in the thread you pointed > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1903211209280.41@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > he does not give us the exact reason why he does not think the "more > > aggressive" mode is not suitable for other use cases, though. > > Having an answer to that question could be helpful. Sure. The `creation factor` essentially tells Git how confident the caller is that the two provided commit ranges contain only matching pairs of patches, no matter how different they look. When calling `git format-patch --range-diff`, we can be _quite_ certain. Not necessarily 100% (in which case the creation factor would need to be a lot higher than 100), as it does happen that contributors have to drop a patch or two, and add a patch or two, sometimes in the same iteration. When calling `git range-diff` in general, we can be less certain about that. In fact, users like me often call `git range-diff` to _determine_ whether there are obvious matches (for example, to see whether commits in GitGitGadget PRs have corresponding commits in `seen`). That difference in certainty is the entire reason why I contend that `range-diff` and `format-patch --range-diff` need different defaults for the creation factor. > > A similar thread was raised more recently: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/rq6919s9-qspp-rn6o-n704-r0400q10747r@xxxxxx/ > > I think I missed this thread. Heh. I had forgotten about it. Ciao, Johannes
