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,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 85F9C20281 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 06:05:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750837AbdJCGFq (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2017 02:05:46 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:56310 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750767AbdJCGFp (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2017 02:05:45 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D500EA8ED9; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 02:05:44 -0400 (EDT) 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=HAfl5ak4TZF18Vxd8K8nD3qIyjU=; b=B3+miA rcOUplSXH2tIr+d7sMp8FtspYMRWIywva2y2RPM/RCAknseEicNITaOM9hAPXfEJ FIz3zRqpfwmOY0WYHrIIup04fM5rjt8RdPjcRW6vPNN8wtX9YaSnPCr3hKQZ7xin c152VGikzynrIVbqBxIPSzHk9YuY6vjFJPl70= 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=cY6GPjEdO62JBTP/5LpugsdLmoWQBNZP cWB4EsGVBtHx2vGvZlMF9fJHBFSJzbJJ3mAhpKB8NAxLKDuYuOYmtTjkSqVZ+NWz jAUDrDnoONVBDVK0wJ14wF83EeQnHquBBCPXbMmSE5ZnWCsgMNL/+W7VIJrkOlK9 VV5PjCdE0uM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE4AA8ED8; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 02:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AF40A8ED7; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 02:05:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Michael J Gruber Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Ekelhart Jakob , Jeff King , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] merge-base: return fork-point outside reflog References: <68633b20-9e2b-ae23-2ede-8728283250f0@grubix.eu> <5513a1415d11517c28158d9b4212d383a233182f.1505394278.git.git@grubix.eu> <5a2fca1d-4edf-965f-4840-58c924c91051@grubix.eu> <4a14c35c-88b0-7bc3-0a6e-c69ed9ec7ee7@grubix.eu> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 15:05:43 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:14:39 +0900") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E46260A8-A800-11E7-A44B-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Michael J Gruber writes: > >> I'm still trying to understand what the original intent was: If we >> abstract from the implementation (as we should, as you rightly >> emphasize) and talk about historical tips then we have to ask ourselves: >> - What is "historical"? >> - What is tip? >> - Tip of what, i.e. what is a "branch"? > > The feature was meant to be a solution for "upstream rebased the > branch I based my work on." > ... So, what is the status of this thing? While I think 1/3 and 3/3 of these three definitely make sense, I do not think "fork-point outside reflog" does as-is If it is not even part of the commits that were known to be at the tip some time in the past (including "right now"---which is the fix you made with 3/3 is about), then the patch may make the command return something in more situations, and these extra things that it returns might even be improvements, but they are definitely not "fork-points". To be quite honest, I am not convinced that the extra output you would get out of the command by removing the latter half of "which are the ancestors that were known to be at the tip?" would always give better commit to use as the beginning of the topic to be rebased, as I do not see any reasoning behind why, unlike the filtered case where there _is_ a strong reasoning (with explained limitation) behind it. As long as the code misidentifies and picks a commits deeper than necessary, which will force the user to say "rebase --skip", I think we are OK. What we want to absolutely avoid is the opposite; somehow the code misidentifies a commit that is part of the work you want to rebase as a recommended fork-point, which would cause the rebase to silently lose changes. I do not think I saw why it won't happen explained in the log message of 2/3 at all.