Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
>> > git rev-list --first-parent --bisect-all F..E >revs &&
>> > test_line_count = 9 revs &&
>> > for rev in E e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8
>> > do
>> > grep "^$(git rev-parse $rev) " revs ||
>> > {
>> > echo "$rev not shown" >&2 &&
>> > return 1
>> > }
>> > done &&
>> > sed -e "s/.*(dist=\([0-9]*\)).*/\1/" revs >actual.dists &&
>> > sort -r actual.dists >actual.dists.sorted &&
>> > test_cmp actual.dists.sorted actual.dists
>>
> From my point of view, this indicates that you want to set those exact
> dist values in stone.
As I already said, I do not think it is absolutely necessary to
declare that the minimum dist is 0 or 1, or how big one step of dist
is. For those reading from the sidelines, the history we are
testing this new feature over looks like this
# E dist=0
# / \
# e1 | dist=1
# | |
# e2 | dist=2
# | | ...
# | | ...
# e7 | dist=2
# | |
# e8 | dist=1
# \ /
# F dist=0
Current code will say dist=0 for E and F, dist=1 for e1 and e8,
etc., and I am fine if the code suddenly start saying that E and F
(i.e. those at the boundary of the graph) have dist=1 and one hop
weighs 10 so dist=11 for e1 and e8 (i.e. those at one hop from the
boundary).
But I am not fine if E and F get larger dist than e1 and e8, or e1
and e8 get different ones. I do not think the code quoted upfront
would catch such future breakages.
And I also do not see a reason why somebody wants to make the dist
computation to be 1-based (iow, changing the minimum from 0 to 1) or
one step not to be 1 (iow, giving 11 to e1 and e8), so while I agree
it is not strictly necessary to cast the concrete distance value in
stone, I do not see much harm doing so *if* it helps to make it
simpler the test that is necessary to make sure relative dist values
assigned to these commits are in correct order.
