Re: [jgit-dev] RevSort#COMMIT_TIME_DESC confusion

[Marc Strapetz <marc.strapetz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> The patches are working (at least for the tests), still they are more or
>> less drafts. If this approach is a way to go, I'll continue to refine them.
> 
> As I just noticed, there are flaws in the algorithm when topological
> order is not consistent with order by commit time. So for now I'd
> primarily appreciate feedback regarding the approach using a custom
> DateRevQueue.

There is a new patch which is closer to Shawn's suggestions waiting for
review since more than a month now:

> http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,4537

I'd appreciate comments :)

--
Best regards,
Marc Strapetz
=============
syntevo GmbH
http://www.syntevo.com
http://blog.syntevo.com



On 03.11.2011 19:45, Marc Strapetz wrote:
> On 03.11.2011 18:33, Marc Strapetz wrote:
>> On 15.08.2011 17:59, Marc Strapetz wrote:
>>> On 13.08.2011 21:05, Shawn Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:15, Marc Strapetz <marc.strapetz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> Should I keep them local to our project or submit as patch? In
>>>>>>> latter case, any suggestions where to place that methods?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Operations like `git branch --contains` need something like this. So
>>>>>> we would appreciate a contribution to RevWalk or a new class in that
>>>>>> same package that makes this operation easy in JGit.
>>
>> I've now uploaded two patches addressing this issue:
>>
>> http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,4537
>> http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,4538
>>
>> 4537 is the interesting one, which introduces a new queue extending
>> DateRevQueue which discards commits that are ancestors of commits which
>> are common to all start commits. The queue has to be installed for a
>> RevWalk and thereby puts some restrictions on the configuration of the
>> RevWalk. However, it may be combined with different Commit sorting,
>> especially topological one. This opens up some more applications related
>> to common ancestors: for instance, it helped me to speed up detection of
>> pushable/mergable commits (git status' "diverged" commits).
>>
>> The patches are working (at least for the tests), still they are more or
>> less drafts. If this approach is a way to go, I'll continue to refine them.
> 
> As I just noticed, there are flaws in the algorithm when topological
> order is not consistent with order by commit time. So for now I'd
> primarily appreciate feedback regarding the approach using a custom
> DateRevQueue.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Marc Strapetz
> =============
> syntevo GmbH
> http://www.syntevo.com
> http://blog.syntevo.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jgit-dev mailing list
> jgit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jgit-dev
>