Hello Deskin,
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 10:30:50AM -0400, Deskin Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 08:58:15PM +0200, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=F6nig_ wrote:
> > > + if test -n "$(git rev-list $1..HEAD)"
> > I already wrote similar tests and I wonder if this couldn't be done in a
> > new builtin command more effectively. Something like
> >
> > git rev-contains HEAD "$1"
> >
> > . I expect it to be faster and maybe it prevents a command line
> > overflow?! [...]
>
> I'm not sure this warrants a builtin; seems like test is perfectly capable of
> doing what you want:
>
> if test '(' -n "$(git rev-list --max-count=1 $1..HEAD)" ')' -a \
> '(' -z "$(git rev-list --max-count=1 HEAD..$1)" ')'
>
> The second check is needed to ensure that the commits actually have an
> ancestor-descendant relationship.
This is needed for the original patch, too, isn't it.
> And --max-count means your command line
> won't overflow.
ah, --max-count is a nice idea. Topgit could benefit from it.
> Or what about this:
>
> if test "$(git merge-base $1 HEAD)" = "$(git rev-parse $1)"
It's not entirely clear to me, this works in general, because a
merge-base isn't unique. It should work in this case, though.
Best regards
Uwe
--
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
