From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744B71F59D for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:54:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="lXpMwcSc"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1350508AbiHSRwP (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:52:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34330 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1351704AbiHSRvr (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:51:47 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x64a.google.com (mail-pl1-x64a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::64a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F352D64FA for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:25:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x64a.google.com with SMTP id q11-20020a170902dacb00b0016efd6984c3so3097341plx.17 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:25:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:from:subject:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:date:from:to :cc; bh=jWZLfDwJzGMJew6UaYiraUN91wgJc1WTUlNXhMB0LyI=; b=lXpMwcScFK87M0+62R4GEogaxo0ROVWPKdDcPOme4F3M3+OoROFP2k834Pf0lPKGDp hTpTfrPUBAdh+svHgdyUpwMm8ZJ8ILnphScOVsJhCdrH9dFcSHPc8d80hfBAP0U7UaEL qHTOBAJ1SQO7b8hTtpwjUIdqDzn4Qhwwu3jw43GswwFOAnq0mROM7QwZVmGaWpkwErUS +l4SqmpqQbi30p3xfYbS8zT8P9qzSf8TRJ3urm6qKbpSHke1Xty+QcGzosIQ4OWhRDgt u5GT3BO4EVdLTMTg2zj52mJ7n4J+rHllQzcz8QvnelzejR4lA4tNeD8IGdt/Qa5f1DQt esGg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:from:subject:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=jWZLfDwJzGMJew6UaYiraUN91wgJc1WTUlNXhMB0LyI=; b=ZzYrEvSATvSTWZMELmye+bvs7Z7nDii8lmHgd41XXagT3gWC5nQy8W+4uuDEdF/Hfb hSxfknLImGSw0LLMSMMxilPYOlFxgNdxear7Bi/YemlV3jYDo8CTPljdSlT3jCRaMshr WzzEqxy+k20Fzl1Amw1urEC7Wk3dQBLjMUl/kRLCx1HDCVxgw4LpK1NEhUVDNkLg56kY zsNxSH2H2FJ1qikibofBzYGtvjzTL0p0YZVt2qlqY8l5JXJWDkUoxzwIvebmnZnUH+hI cK97qi/r0Jft0u7CzRYJpXI3rjGPNgsyJtJM2J8QDaKnfMvOucFnlQ4wn7+IdmCYD6AM b20g== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0qhjpBjnArDS+JaZPGQpV4QXBvuJxxkb2ZTBQbQSwhS7f/jAlM KVdFwtIvq5sloxyPAxcJgXo81ZTK76M3R+3ykn4n X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR7+O1x5uHDBG6TgAHKRCXOJLWve0bBgcsrt8QiV6T5LKlxjB9BsqMKNeSSIVek/a/Wzl6l00RnFtiW0PG8OeT4p X-Received: from twelve4.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:24:72f4:c0a8:437a]) (user=jonathantanmy job=sendgmr) by 2002:a17:90a:249:b0:1e0:a8a3:3c6c with SMTP id t9-20020a17090a024900b001e0a8a33c6cmr440304pje.0.1660929923125; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:25:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:25:19 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20220819172519.3703282-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.37.1.595.g718a3a8f04-goog Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] revision: allow --ancestry-path to take an argument From: Jonathan Tan To: Elijah Newren Cc: Jonathan Tan , Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elijah Newren writes: > > Optional: Besides that, from what I can tell, sometimes the C commits > > themselves are marked with ANCESTRY_PATH (when they are explicitly > > specified) and sometimes they are not (when they are not explicitly > > specified). It's not a bug here, but it might be worth handling that in > > the ancestry_path_need_bottoms codepath (instead of explicitly setting > > TMP_MARK on the bottoms in limit_to_ancestry() - that way, I think we > > can also use ANCESTRY_PATH instead of TMP_MARK throughout the ancestry > > path codepaths, but I haven't tested it), at least to prevent possible > > future bugs. > > That sounds like you're trying to duplicate the bug in my first > attempt at this patch. If you try to coalesce ANCESTRY_PATH and > TMP_MARK, then you not only get all descendants of C, you also get all > descendants of any ancestor of C, which defeats the whole point of my > changes. Ah, yes you're right. > It's true that I don't mark implicit C commits with ANCESTRY_PATH, but > those are always bottom commits that are the excluded end of a range > anyway. While those could be marked without causing problems, it > would always be a waste of effort. Yes, that's true.