Re: [PATCH] Fixes git-cherry algorithmic flaws

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: 2006-09-25 03:47:29
Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:

> 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?

Ah I did not realize that, but yes the documentation is
incorrect.

I wonder if we can kill it by introducing a new rev notation and
using regular rev-list family of commands instead.

What we want here is a way to say "give me commits that are in B
but not in A, but before returning a commit see if there is an
equivalent change in the set of commits that are in A but not in
B, and filter it out".

Time for "rev-list A....B"? ;-)



-
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 Mon Sep 25 03:47:49 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-09-25 03:48:32 EST