Jeff King wrote: > If so, then this series isn't regressing behavior; the only downside is > that it's an incomplete fix. In theory this could get in the way of the > full fix later on, but given the commit messages and the archive of this > discussion, it would be simple enough to revert it later in favor of a > more full fix. Is that accurate? > > Sorry if I am belaboring the discussion. I just want to make sure I > understand the situation before deciding what to do with the topic. It > sounds like the consensus at this point is "not perfect, but good enough > to make forward progress".
Patch 1, 2, and 4 are good modulo their descriptions. They should work fine without patch 3. Patch 3 is a regression in comprehensibility. I think we can do better. Maybe all it would take is a less confusing description, and tweaks to the code (to loop over revs->cmdline instead of revs->pending) could come on top. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
