Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

On 6/25/2019 3:51 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Jakub Narebski writes: >> Derrick Stolee writes: >>> On 5/20/2019 7:02 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: Are there any blockers that prevent the switch to this "generation number v2"? - Is it a problem with insufficient data to choose

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

Jakub Narebski writes: > Derrick Stolee writes: >> On 5/20/2019 7:02 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: >>> >>> Are there any blockers that prevent the switch to this >>> "generation number v2"? >>> >>> - Is it a problem with insufficient data to choose the correct numbering >>> as "generation number v

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

Derrick Stolee writes: > On 5/22/2019 2:29 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> Derrick Stolee writes: >>> On 5/20/2019 7:27 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> >> Restating it yet again: >> >>A. corrected_date(C) = max(committer_date(C), >>max_P(committer_date(P) + offset(

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

On 5/22/2019 2:29 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Derrick Stolee writes: >> On 5/20/2019 7:27 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Restating it yet again: > >A. corrected_date(C) = max(committer_date(C), >max_P(committer_date(P) + offset(P)) + 1) > >B. offset(C) = ma

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

Derrick Stolee writes: > On 5/20/2019 7:27 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> Jakub Narebski writes: >>> Derrick Stolee writes: On 5/20/2019 7:02 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > Are there any blockers that prevent the switch to this > "generation number v2"? >> [...] >>

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 09:54:12AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: >> There are established corner cases, where in a repo where commit dates >> are not monotonically increasing, [...] > All the above is without commit-graph, I presume? If so, then you > should give it a try, as it

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

On 5/20/2019 7:27 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Jakub Narebski writes: >> Derrick Stolee writes: >>> On 5/20/2019 7:02 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: Are there any blockers that prevent the switch to this "generation number v2"? > [...] > >>> Using the generation num

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

Jakub Narebski writes: > Derrick Stolee writes: >> On 5/20/2019 7:02 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: >>> >>> Are there any blockers that prevent the switch to this >>> "generation number v2"? [...] >> Using the generation number column for the corrected >> commit-date offsets (ass

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

Derrick Stolee writes: > On 5/20/2019 7:02 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> >> Are there any blockers that prevent the switch to this >> "generation number v2"? >> >> - Is it a problem with insufficient data to choose the correct numbering >> as "generation number v2' (there can be only one)? >> -

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

On 5/20/2019 7:02 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > Are there any blockers that prevent the switch to this > "generation number v2"? > > - Is it a problem with insufficient data to choose the correct numbering > as "generation number v2' (there can be only one)? > - Is it a problem with selected "ge

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

Derrick Stolee writes: > On 5/18/2019 12:17 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: >> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:58:28PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: >>> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 03:50:05AM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: All the above is without commit-graph, I presume? If so, then you should give it a tr

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

On 5/18/2019 12:17 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:58:28PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: >> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 03:50:05AM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: >>> >>> All the above is without commit-graph, I presume? If so, then you >>> should give it a try, as it might bring immediate

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

SZEDER Gábor writes: > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 01:17:06PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: >> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:58:28PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: >>> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 03:50:05AM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 09:54:12AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: [...] > There

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 01:17:06PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:58:28PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 03:50:05AM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 09:54:12AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > There are established corner cases

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:58:28PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 03:50:05AM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 09:54:12AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > There are established corner cases, where in a repo where commit dates > > > are not monotonically incr

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 03:50:05AM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 09:54:12AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > There are established corner cases, where in a repo where commit dates > > are not monotonically increasing, revision walking can go horribly > > wrong. This was discusse

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 09:54:12AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > There are established corner cases, where in a repo where commit dates > are not monotonically increasing, revision walking can go horribly > wrong. This was discussed in the past in e.g. > https://public-inbox.org/git/20150521061553.ga

Revision walking, commit dates, slop

Hi, There are established corner cases, where in a repo where commit dates are not monotonically increasing, revision walking can go horribly wrong. This was discussed in the past in e.g. https://public-inbox.org/git/20150521061553.ga29...@glandium.org/ The only (simple) workable way, given the c