Re: [PATCH] Fixes git-cherry algorithmic flaws

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: 2006-09-24 21:17:38
Dear diary, on Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 03:49:22AM CEST, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> said that...
> Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:
> 
> > Dear diary, on Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:30:13PM CEST, I got a letter
> > where Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi> said that...
> >> Old algorithm:
> >>         - printed IDs of identical patches with minus (-) sign; they
> >> 	  should not be printed at all
> >>         - did not print anything from the changes in the upstream
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
> >
> > Ping? Is this patch bogus or was it just forgotten?
> 
> These are not fixes to "algorithmic flaws".  It's more like that
> Ilpo is writing a different program to fill different needs, and
> I did not see what workflow wanted to have the list of changes
> that were in the upstream and our changes.  Maybe what Ilpo
> wanted to see was something like "git log upstream...mine"
> (three-dots not two to mean symmetric difference).  I dunno.
> That operation certainly did not exist when we did git-cherry
> originally.
> 
> The original purpose of git-cherry (which probably is different
> from what Ilpo wanted to have, and that is why Ilpo modified it
> into a different program) is for a developer in the contributor
> role to see which ones of local patches have been accepted
> upstream and which ones still remain unapplied -- the intent is
> to help rebase only the latter and keep trying to convince
> upstream that these remaining ones are also worth applying.
> 
> So minus (-) lines are very much needed to if you want to see
> which ones have been accepted.  Plus lines are used to pick
> which ones to rebase by older version of git-rebase, but I do
> not think we do that anymore.  And in any case we are _not_
> interested in whatever happened in the upstream that did not
> come from the branch we are looking at.

Hmm, well, what's curious is that the documentation says

	Every commit with a changeset that doesn't exist in the other branch
	has its id (sha1) reported, prefixed by a symbol.  Those existing only
	in the <upstream> branch are prefixed with a minus (-) sign, and those
	that only exist in the <head> branch are prefixed with a plus (+)
	symbol.

which is in contradiction of Ilpo's description of the old algorithm
(and also your description of it). It would seem he just wants to fix it
according to the documented behaviour.

I guess the documentation is what's broken then?

-- 
				Petr "Pasky the Let's See How Long I Can
					Manage Arguing Without Actually
					Looking at the Code" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Sun Sep 24 21:17:44 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-09-24 21:18:28 EST