Re: commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous

2018-05-25 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 05/25/2018 12:08 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Derrick Stolee writes: >> On 5/22/2018 1:39 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: >>> On 05/21/2018 08:10 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote: [...] >>> This may be beyond the scope of what you are working on, but there are >>> significant

Re: commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous

2018-05-24 Thread Jakub Narebski
Derrick Stolee writes: > On 5/22/2018 1:39 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: >> On 05/21/2018 08:10 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote: >>> [...] >>> In the Discussion section of the `git merge-base` docs [1], we have the >>> following: >>> >>>     When the history involves criss-cross merges,

Re: commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous

2018-05-22 Thread Derrick Stolee
On 5/22/2018 1:39 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: On 05/21/2018 08:10 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote: [...] In the Discussion section of the `git merge-base` docs [1], we have the following:     When the history involves criss-cross merges, there can be more than one best common ancestor for two

Re: commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous

2018-05-21 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 05/21/2018 08:10 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote: > [...] > In the Discussion section of the `git merge-base` docs [1], we have the > following: > >     When the history involves criss-cross merges, there can be more than > one best common ancestor for two commits. For example, with this topology: >

Re: commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous

2018-05-21 Thread Stefan Beller
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:33:11AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > >> > In t6024-recursive-merge.sh, we have the following commit structure: >> > >> > # 1 - A - D - F >> > # \ X / >> > # B X >> > #

Re: commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous

2018-05-21 Thread Jacob Keller
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Jeff King wrote: > Yes, I think this is clearly a case where all of the single merge-bases > we could show are equally good. And I don't think we should promise to > show a particular one, but I _do_ think it's friendly for us to have >

Re: commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous

2018-05-21 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 02:10:54PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > In the Discussion section of the `git merge-base` docs [1], we have the > following: > >     When the history involves criss-cross merges, there can be more than one > best common ancestor for two commits. For example, with this

Re: commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous

2018-05-21 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:33:11AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > In t6024-recursive-merge.sh, we have the following commit structure: > > > > # 1 - A - D - F > > # \ X / > > # B X > > # X \ > > # 2 - C - E - G > > > > When merging F to G, there are two

Re: commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous

2018-05-21 Thread Elijah Newren
Hi, On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Derrick Stolee wrote: > Hello all, > > While working on the commit-graph feature, I made a test commit that sets > core.commitGraph and gc.commitGraph to true by default AND runs 'git > commit-graph write --reachable' after each 'git

commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous

2018-05-21 Thread Derrick Stolee
Hello all, While working on the commit-graph feature, I made a test commit that sets core.commitGraph and gc.commitGraph to true by default AND runs 'git commit-graph write --reachable' after each 'git commit' command. This helped me find instances in the test suite where the commit-graph