Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Make --full-history consider more merges

From: Kevin Bracey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:11:16 +0300

On 25/04/2013 19:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kevin Bracey <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Thanks for the test addition. Maybe we will be able to satisfy your
>> greed in this series. There could be more worth doing here, and I
>> think getting TREESAME precise is key.
> It is perfectly fine to do things one step at a time.  Let's get
> the --full-history change into a good shape first and worry about
> the more complex case after we are done.

So do you see the rerun of try_to_simplify_commit() as acceptable? I'm 
really not happy with it - it was fine for an initial proof-of-concept, 
but it's an obvious waste of CPU cycles to recompute something we 
already figured out, and I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the 
function potentially does more than just compute TREESAME; by inspection 
it seems safe given the known context inside simplify_merges(), but it 
feels like something waiting to trip us up. The latter could be dealt 
with by breaking try_to_simplify_commit() up, but that feels like a 
diversion. I'd rather just get on and make this first patch store and 
use the per-parent-treesame flags if feasible.

Kevin