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
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:20:40AM +0300, Kevin Bracey wrote:
> On 30/05/2018 00:04, Jeff King wrote:
> >
> > Do we even need to do the parent rewriting here? By definition those
> > parents aren't interesting, and we're TREESAME to whatever is in
> > treesame_parents. So conceptually it seems
On 30/05/2018 00:04, Jeff King wrote:
Do we even need to do the parent rewriting here? By definition those
parents aren't interesting, and we're TREESAME to whatever is in
treesame_parents. So conceptually it seems like we just need a flag "I
found a treesame parent", but we only convert that
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:06:51AM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
> index 4e0e193e57..0ddd2c1e8a 100644
> --- a/revision.c
> +++ b/revision.c
> @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static inline int limiting_can_increase_treesame(const
> struct rev_info *revs)
>
> static
On 29/05/2018 01:06, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
So, without investing nearly enough time to understand what is going
on, I massaged the above diffs into this:
Cool.
+ treesame_parents =
xmalloc(sizeof(*treesame_parents));
There's no need to actually record a list
ceeds with the above patch. Eventually it should
be part of 't6012-rev-list-simplify.sh', of course, but I haven't
looked into that yet.
--- >8 ---
diff --git a/t/t-weird-revision-walk-behaviour.sh
b/t/t-weird-revision-walk-behaviour.sh
new file mode 100755
index
On 24/05/2018 23:26, Kevin Bracey wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:10:58PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
$ git log --oneline master..ba95710a3b -- ci/
ea44c0a594 Merge branch 'bw/protocol-v2' into
jt/partial-clone-proto-v2
In this case, we're hitting a merge commit which is not on
On 23/05/2018 20:35, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 01:32:46PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:10:58PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
$ git log --oneline master..ba95710a3b -- ci/
ea44c0a594 Merge branch 'bw/protocol-v2' into jt/partial-clone-proto-v2
I keep
On 23/05/2018 20:35, Jeff King wrote:
There's more discussion in the thread at:
https://public-inbox.org/git/1366658602-12254-1-git-send-email-ke...@bracey.fi/
I haven't absorbed it all yet, but I'm adding Junio to the cc.
Just to ack that I've seen the discussion, but I can't identify
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 01:32:46PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:10:58PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> > $ git log --oneline master..ba95710a3b -- ci/
> > ea44c0a594 Merge branch 'bw/protocol-v2' into jt/partial-clone-proto-v2
> >
> > But as far as I can tell, there
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:10:58PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> $ git log --oneline master..ba95710a3b -- ci/
> ea44c0a594 Merge branch 'bw/protocol-v2' into jt/partial-clone-proto-v2
>
> But as far as I can tell, there are no changes in the 'ci/' directory
> on any of the merge's parents:
>
There is this topic 'jt/partial-clone-proto-v2' currently cooking in
'next' and pointing to ba95710a3b ({fetch,upload}-pack: support filter
in protocol v2, 2018-05-03). This topic is built on top of the merge
commit ea44c0a594 (Merge branch 'bw/protocol-v2' into
jt/partial-clone-proto-v2,
12 matches
Mail list logo
