On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:13:09AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Heiko Voigt <hvo...@hvoigt.net> writes:
> > The most exact solution would be to use all actual remote refs available
> > (not sure if we have them at this point in the process?) another
> > solution would be to still append the --remotes=<remotename> option as a
> > fallback to reduce the revisions.
> I'd say --remotes=<remotename> is the least problematic thing to do.
Ok then lets drop my last patch and keep it the way it was. Because if
the remote sha1 differs we probably do not have it locally anyway. The
only case this does not catch is when the user specifies a remote URL.
But that just means we will iterate over all revisions instead of a
reduced set, which makes the check slower but still correct. As one can
see from my measurements that should not be that bad anymore.