hoi :) On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 11:36:55PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I think that is fine as long as we somehow enforce the topology > of submodule to be similar to the toplevel topology. Otherwise > I suspect it leads to unintuitive behaviour. > > Suppose that the ancestry chain for the toplevel are A, A~1, A~2 > and you asked for "A~2..A". A submodule is bound at tree "sub/" > and suppose A:sub/ == B, A~1:sub/ == C, and A~2:sub/ == D. > > Now further suppose the ancestry chain for B, C and D are like > this: > > o---C > / \ > ...o---o---D---B > > A naive implementation of "--objects A~2..A" would propagate > UNINTERESTING to D and mark B and C unmarked. Would it however > be reasonable to include commits marked as 'o'? I think it is reasonable to just go on as in a normal repository. That is, pretend we want to list D..B and mark all commits which are reachable. -- Martin Waitz - 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-11-21 18:58:16 EST