On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > Jacob Keller <[email protected]> writes: > >> I agree, "something" is better than "nothing", and we can work to >> improve "something" in the future, especially after we get more real >> use and see what people think. Only question would be how much do we >> need to document the current behavior might be open for improvement? > > If > > - it always digs to the root of the history no matter what; and/or
this is fixed. > - it almost always yields correct but suboptimal result this is not, for the lack of knowing what the optimal result is. > > then that fact must be documented in BUGS section, possibly a brief > descrition of why that limitation is there, with a hint to invite > people to look into fixing it. > > We should mark it prominently as experimental and advertise it as > such. "It's too slow in real project to be usable" I found it quite fast after fixing the history walking, but still. > and "Its output > bases the answer on an irrelevant commit" are not something we want > our users to experience, except for those with inclination to (or > ability and time to) help improve the feature. I think the current documentation states exactly this. Thanks.
