Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> +is-base:<committish>::
>> + In at most one row, `(<committish>)` will appear to indicate the ref
>> + that minimizes the number of commits in the first-parent history of
>> + `<committish>` and not in the first-parent history of the ref.
This was a bit too dense for me to grok. So if I have a <commit>
that is at the tip of a branch B forked from 'master', and then
'master' advanced by a lot since the branch forked, the number this
is minimizing for 'master' is the commits on the branch B, but when
showing 'maint', then even though the branch B may have the tip of
'maint' as an ancestor, the number for 'maint' would be a lot more
than the number for 'master'. If there were another branch C that
was forked from 'master' and shared some (or all) commits that are
near the tip of branch B, e.g.
---o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o 'master'
\
o---o---o---o 'C'
\
o---o---o---o 'B'
then the number may be even smaller for branch 'C' than 'master'.
And for at most one ref, %(is-base:<commit>) becomes "(<commit>)";
for all other refs, it becomes an empty string.
OK.
> OK. Knowing what definition you used is crucial when reading the
> implementation, as we cannot tell what you wanted to implement
> without it ;-)
>
> Thanks.
