From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
To: "git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>,
Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Subject: commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 14:10:54 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e78a115a-a5ea-3c0a-5437-51ba0bcc56e1@gmail.com> (raw)
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
feature changes existing functionality. Most of these were in regards to
grafts, replace-objects, and shallow-clones (as expected) or when trying
to find a corrupt or hidden commit (the commit-graph hides this
corrupt/missing data). However, there was one interesting case that I'd
like to mention on-list.
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 "best" merge-bases, A and C. With
core.commitGraph=false, 'git merge-base F G' returns A, while it returns
C when core.commitGraph=true. This is due to the new walk order when
using generation numbers, although I have not dug deep into the code to
point out exactly where the choice between A and C is made. Likely it's
just whatever order they are inserted into a list.
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:
---1---o---A
\ /
X
/ \
---2---o---o---B
both 1 and 2 are merge-bases of A and B. Neither one is better than
the other (both are best merge bases). When the --all option is not
given, it is unspecified which best one is output.
This means our official documentation mentions that we do not have a
concrete way to differentiate between these choices. This makes me think
that this change in behavior is not a bug, but it _is_ a change in
behavior. It's worth mentioning, but I don't think there is any value in
making sure `git merge-base` returns the same output.
Does anyone disagree? Is this something we should solidify so we always
have a "definitive" merge-base?
The biggest reason I think we should avoid sticking to the existing
behavior is that the current behavior depends on the walk order. That
means we would not be able to concretely define a tie-breaker without
changing the existing behavior anyway.
Thanks,
-Stolee
[1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-merge-base#_discussion
next reply other threads:[~2018-05-21 18:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-21 18:10 Derrick Stolee [this message]
2018-05-21 18:33 ` commit-graph: change in "best" merge-base when ambiguous Elijah Newren
2018-05-21 21:50 ` Jeff King
2018-05-21 22:28 ` Stefan Beller
2018-05-21 21:54 ` Jeff King
2018-05-21 22:25 ` Jacob Keller
2018-05-22 5:39 ` Michael Haggerty
2018-05-22 12:48 ` Derrick Stolee
2018-05-24 22:08 ` Jakub Narebski
2018-05-25 6:03 ` Michael Haggerty
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e78a115a-a5ea-3c0a-5437-51ba0bcc56e1@gmail.com \
--to=stolee@gmail.com \
--cc=git@jeffhostetler.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jnareb@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).