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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 3AB591F506 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 15:56:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="wJWvS0gQ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230024AbiIPPzz (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:55:55 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55572 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229990AbiIPPzv (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:55:51 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72530E93 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 08:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94811351B4; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:55:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=BgHCKYPyyvyN ogXRCZQy+NotWpP4i1VGz33fOTgr0r4=; b=wJWvS0gQHEVPy4rqbJdgIzS3zIAH FW9rb4SjyB52wOGtYYlIqT9jXVqmZkjo74LtAIxIlxs79hRuAN5lrLm/1ZN6ZC31 h+JIQnIfHHuIIldRbNdj8BfSPrXmBwVIHmtj0uQu1DvlIvAeYBH1cdcdDhz3D20I XoLjTC5/XxQoryU= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBCA21351B3; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:55:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.5.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F57C1351B2; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:55:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe Cc: Git List , Tim Jaacks , Chris Torek Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] revision: add parents after child for ^! References: <84018532-169f-dc9b-f894-3d19bb7b4245@web.de> <29d50baa-1923-38e1-6ecb-73840376d28e@web.de> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 08:55:45 -0700 In-Reply-To: <29d50baa-1923-38e1-6ecb-73840376d28e@web.de> (=?utf-8?Q?=22R?= =?utf-8?Q?en=C3=A9?= Scharfe"'s message of "Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:02:01 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 06CA0F96-35D8-11ED-A4B4-2AEEC5D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Ren=C3=A9 Scharfe writes: > "git diff A B", "git diff A..B", "git diff ^A B" and "git diff "B ^A" > all produce the same output. So I suspect we could reverse the order > for A..B as well without ill effect if we wanted. Yup. >> Can't we "fix" it at the consumer end, perhaps by checking where >> these commits came from by looking at rev.cmdline? > > We could. Yeah, doing so may be more in line with how two-tree comparison is parsed (your observation above on four combinations). > --- >8 --- > Subject: [PATCH] diff: support ^! for merges > > revision.c::handle_revision_arg_1() resolves ^! by first adding th= e > negated parents and then itself. builtin_diff_combined() expects > the first tree to be the merge and the remaining ones to be the parents= , > though. This mismatch results in bogus diff output. > > Remember the first tree that doesn't belong to a parent and use it > instead of blindly picking the first one. This makes "git diff ^!= " > consistent with "git show ^!". > > Reported-by: Tim Jaacks > Suggested-by: Junio C Hamano > Signed-off-by: Ren=C3=A9 Scharfe > --- > The check "i < rev.cmdline.nr" is necessary to avoid segfaults e.g. > in t0005. I wonder why. Shouldn't rev.pending.objects and > rev.cmdline.rev always have the same number of entries? Things that did not come from command line can go into pending, can't they? E.g. add_head_to_pending(), when lack of rev defaults to "HEAD", touches pending without touching cmdline?