Lars Hjemli wrote:
>On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg <srb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> So, I'd say, since the current code does not and cannot work reliably
>> for anyone specifically using --first-parent (with every merge
>> encountered, the probability of correctness is multiplied by 0.5 at
>> most/least), you are going to do them a favour anyway by fixing the code,
>> then why not simplify the convolution and make the code rock-steady (and
>> implement my patch)?
>The current 'next' branch in git.git contains your patch with my fixup
>on top and I believe this fixes _both_ the original issue with
>first-parent (thanks to your patch) and the issue Nanako discovered
>(thanks to my patch). Am I missing something?
Probably not. I didn't check 'next' yet, since neither mine nor your
patch had been Acked on the list (I guess it shows that I don't know the
procedures here all too well yet).
--
Sincerely, srb@xxxxxxx
Stephen R. van den Berg.
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
