From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329951F42D for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 15:10:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755517AbeEaPKi (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2018 11:10:38 -0400 Received: from 8.mo69.mail-out.ovh.net ([46.105.56.233]:56121 "EHLO 8.mo69.mail-out.ovh.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755484AbeEaPKi (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2018 11:10:38 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 110986 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 31 May 2018 11:10:37 EDT Received: from player699.ha.ovh.net (unknown [10.109.122.67]) by mo69.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A4B17931 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 16:54:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.2.66] (62-183-157-47.bb.dnainternet.fi [62.183.157.47]) (Authenticated sender: kevin@bracey.fi) by player699.ha.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB5FD2400C9; Thu, 31 May 2018 16:54:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Weird revision walk behaviour To: Jeff King Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?SZEDER_G=c3=a1bor?= , Junio C Hamano , Git mailing list References: <20180523173246.GA10299@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180523173523.GB10299@sigill.intra.peff.net> <869a4045-0527-3dcf-33b3-90de2a45cd51@bracey.fi> <20180528220651.20287-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com> <20180529210434.GA3857@sigill.intra.peff.net> <97644280-2187-d314-37ce-2c79935a63bc@bracey.fi> <20180531054355.GA17344@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Kevin Bracey Message-ID: <28359a94-e584-a963-428d-2cf11f2cb895@bracey.fi> Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 17:54:07 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180531054355.GA17344@sigill.intra.peff.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 907193852124172509 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedthedriedvgdekgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjpdevjffgvefmvefgnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecu Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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 proposing would be to > rewrite the parents to the empty set. That feels a bit radical - I believe we need to retain (some) parent information for modes that show it (eg the dangling unfilled circles in gitk). And making it a root I think could cause other problems with making it look like we have a disjoint history. I believe the next simplification step may be trying to follow down to the common root. > What next here? It looks like we have a proposed solution. Do you want > to try to work up a set of tests based on what you wrote earlier? I was hoping Gábor would carry on, as he's made a start... I was just planning to back-seat drive. > I'd also love to hear from Junio as the expert in this area, but I think > he's been a bit busy with maintainer stuff recently. So maybe I should > just be patient. :) > Likewise - I have been quite deep into this, but it was a quite short window of investigation a long time ago, and I've not looked at it since. Would like input from someone with more active knowledge. Kevin