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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F28F1F454 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 02:09:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726830AbfKKCJ2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Nov 2019 21:09:28 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:64509 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726734AbfKKCJ2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Nov 2019 21:09:28 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EDB636E13; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 21:09:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=6NdvNMRC/kzZrGx9IbMXyv+98D4=; b=Zz/sNP BvuA/4XT0r6FIoGQA59+dwHeBxrMvJSF1eyIeyH0lAAfvL2aEnwWIbO+4veCQ366 P0M1nEA8kBZRdFScHHJy9UEZeELPPxP/fsZrKMGcdvtrzwf/P6O6sBht0DwENZn0 ZPWIRgp4A8CgR0XjQRXoP0CIxQzdw42sG1BIU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=tjHCWI8wp/+Su9SYcaKMiJy+QU4lod6a jCilJKObt3V5PwA298CtYuuGyfaru2COa1euWRF7h0I7KFeY9EVMHmMXJpwBMdBy M2Ou7I4MVmipmf0jDJMZpMHIitJT44cj6tCr0/kueOu+Lzt4gosShj56AFHDQ7PA p/hMhcUDF2U= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4656B36E12; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 21:09:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0DB136E11; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 21:09:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Bryan Turner , Git Users , "peff\@peff.net" Subject: Re: Split commit graphs and commit-graph read References: <87f16645-6af4-9703-1d0d-eb64728d2849@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:09:24 +0900 In-Reply-To: <87f16645-6af4-9703-1d0d-eb64728d2849@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:19:20 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 48EAADFC-0428-11EA-A3CE-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Derrick Stolee writes: > To fix this issue, I would probably go about it by removing the "read" > subcommand and creating a "test-tool read-commit-graph" for the tests > that need that output. > > If others on-list think that the better thing to do is to update the > "read" subcommand to provide the same output, but iterate over each > layer of an incremental commit-graph, then I can do that work instead. I think moving it to test-tool is a good idea, whether the output presents a single result that consolidates all layers together, or allows to name just a single layer and shows its contents. I do not have a strong opinion between the two (both sounds usable debugging aid). Thanks.