W dniu 2014-06-20 23:17, Nico Williams pisze:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty writes:
[...]
Hmph, but that obviously will become very expensive to compute as
project grows.
That's the main reason to like Fossil's approach (namely, the use of
SQL, sp
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty writes:
>> [...]
>
> Hmph, but that obviously will become very expensive to compute as
> project grows.
That's the main reason to like Fossil's approach (namely, the use of
SQL, specifically SQLite3): you can write declara
On 06/20/2014 08:53 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty writes:
>
>> It just looks asymmetric, but actually it is symmetric, which was kindof
>> surprising when I realized it
>>
>> Since "|branch ∧ master|" is the same for all candidates, minimizing N
>> is the same as maximizing |ca
Michael Haggerty writes:
> It just looks asymmetric, but actually it is symmetric, which was kindof
> surprising when I realized it
>
> Since "|branch ∧ master|" is the same for all candidates, minimizing N
> is the same as maximizing |candidate|, which is the same as
>
> git rev-list --c
On 06/17/2014 05:08 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty writes:
>
>> The "best" merge base
>> =
>>
>> But not all merge bases are created equal. It is possible to define a
>> "best" merge base that has some nice properties.
>>
>> Let's focus on the command
>>
>>
Michael Haggerty writes:
> The "best" merge base
> =
>
> But not all merge bases are created equal. It is possible to define a
> "best" merge base that has some nice properties.
>
> Let's focus on the command
>
> git diff $master...$branch
>
> which is equivalent to
>
>
Jakub Narębski writes:
> I don't know if it has been fixed, but there is a difference
> between "git diff A...B" when A and B have one merge base, and
> "git diff A...B" when there are more than one merge base.
>
> When there is one merge base, "git diff A...B" returns simple
> unified diff equiv
On 06/13/2014 05:52 PM, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> I don't know if it has been fixed, but there is a difference
> between "git diff A...B" when A and B have one merge base, and
> "git diff A...B" when there are more than one merge base.
>
> When there is one merge base, "git diff A...B" returns simpl
W dniu 2014-06-13 11:38, Michael J Gruber pisze:
Michael Haggerty venit, vidit, dixit 13.06.2014 00:12:
I've been thinking a lot about merge bases lately and think I have
discovered something interesting.
tl;dr:
When two branches have multiple merge bases,
git merge-base $master $branch
On 06/13/2014 11:38 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Michael Haggerty venit, vidit, dixit 13.06.2014 00:12:
>> I've been thinking a lot about merge bases lately and think I have
>> discovered something interesting.
>>
>> tl;dr:
>>
>> When two branches have multiple merge bases,
>>
>> git merge-bas
Michael Haggerty venit, vidit, dixit 13.06.2014 00:12:
> I've been thinking a lot about merge bases lately and think I have
> discovered something interesting.
>
> tl;dr:
>
> When two branches have multiple merge bases,
>
> git merge-base $master $branch
>
> picks one merge base more or les
I've been thinking a lot about merge bases lately and think I have
discovered something interesting.
tl;dr:
When two branches have multiple merge bases,
git merge-base $master $branch
picks one merge base more or less arbitrarily. Here I describe a
criterion for picking a "best" merge base
12 matches
Mail list logo
