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-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8EC71F4B4 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 15:46:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732567AbgJAPqU (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:46:20 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:57898 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731885AbgJAPqT (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:46:19 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCE4107BFD; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:46:17 -0400 (EDT) (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=457IrKJqzCwJ4MhL48My49IJ/N8=; b=xi9vrf q/0CO7CUPyO9OnaJ2jTj2eEGawxJ/bgj1OvJO1vQMYM2rADKPDd/9BZ0d1L9GiOz KZixgyMafmILGPGwrxoec0XMjFXT7t0ZnJHP143g6zNxO1Zptcyvq3hMKmwAylw6 5vvw3d6Bk6hKOzC5Rx/H4oMCLXB83gda/n1Vo= 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=MCfwZ415xlm/sKybr/QoId6SUtaIGlWT DFRPex4LTMsvd5oa5GxAfJoxhR64A+Y0wh/kSP6pIHyrv6lnN0xceovOlXXZNELk cvCOwCQEao8s6X4dcK0X9wBpBq/8V80BoB5XaRQ8Qzg+0OKHWj5SFzu9yyK6OI5F PIrcu5qY8qY= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85417107BFC; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:46:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9037107BFB; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:46:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Srinidhi Kaushik Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/3] push: add "--[no-]force-if-includes" References: <20200927141747.78047-1-shrinidhi.kaushik@gmail.com> <20201001082118.19441-1-shrinidhi.kaushik@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 08:46:13 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20201001082118.19441-1-shrinidhi.kaushik@gmail.com> (Srinidhi Kaushik's message of "Thu, 1 Oct 2020 13:51:15 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3CE7A872-03FD-11EB-B7B2-843F439F7C89-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Srinidhi Kaushik writes: > Changes since v8: > - Disable "commit-graph" when "in_merge_bases_many()" is called > for this check, because it returns different results depending > on whether "commit-graph" is enabled [1]. Is that a wise move, though? If the "different results" is expected, then it is a different story, but I would think it is a bug in commit-graph codepath if it produces a result different from what the callers expect, and disabling from the caller's end would mean that we lose one opportunity to help commit-graph folks to go and fix their bugs, no? Other than that, I think the topic is in quite a good shape. Thanks for working on polishing it.