On 31/05/2018 08:43, Jeff King wrote:
If there are zero parents (neither relevant nor irrelevant), is it still
TREESAME? I would say in theory yes.
Not sure - I think roots are such a special case that TREESAME
effectively doesn't matter. We always test for roots first.
So what I was proposing would be to
rewrite the parents to the empty set.
That feels a bit radical - I believe we need to retain (some) parent
information for modes that show it (eg the dangling unfilled circles in
gitk). And making it a root I think could cause other problems with
making it look like we have a disjoint history. I believe the next
simplification step may be trying to follow down to the common root.
What next here? It looks like we have a proposed solution. Do you want
to try to work up a set of tests based on what you wrote earlier?
I was hoping Gábor would carry on, as he's made a start... I was just
planning to back-seat drive.
I'd also love to hear from Junio as the expert in this area, but I think
he's been a bit busy with maintainer stuff recently. So maybe I should
just be patient. :)
Likewise - I have been quite deep into this, but it was a quite short
window of investigation a long time ago, and I've not looked at it
since. Would like input from someone with more active knowledge.
Kevin
