Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:

>> If the change in HEAD^ in the above example were to copy the whole A
>> and C from a different file, then your !found_guilty logic would
>> kick in and say all lines of A where copied from elsewhere in HEAD^,
>> but again we would not learn the same information for C.
> We would, when it's the turn for C, which is not guilty at this point.

In _this_ round of the while(1) loop, pass_blame_to_parent() gets
the scoreboard and two origins (HEAD^ that we are looking at and
HEAD^^ that is its parent); it does not even know what blame entry
this request came from.

It runs a single diff using diff_hunks(), and asks blame_chunk() to
split all the blame entries in the scoreboard that suspect it is
looking at may be guilty for.  Blame entry for A and C are both
processed exactly the same way when HEAD^ is given to pass_blame()
for the first time, which is when assign_blame() decided to call it
with HEAD^ because it happened to have seen A before seeing C.  At
that point, both A and C are processed, and the post-processing loop
"Take responsibility for the remaining" will clean up remnants from
both A and C.  After this round ends, the suspect for A and C are
both set to HEAD^^.

In the next round of the while(1) loop, C already forgot that its
line movement happened in HEAD^.  Its suspect is now HEAD^^.  When
"it's the turn for C" [*1*], you can say "These lines originate in
that different path in HEAD^^", but it is too late to say "But the
first time they appeared in the original file was HEAD^" (which is
when they were moved from the different path in HEAD^^), isn't it?


*1* It does not make much sense to say "turn for C", by the way.
    pass_blame() work per suspect (not per blame entry), so what you
    are talking about really is "when it is turn for HEAD^^", at
    which point we will discover that these lines in C originate in
    that different path in the commit.  And in the scenario we are
    discussing, we will decide to check HEAD^^ because the blame ent
    for A is also the same origin as C's suspect in HEAD^^, so
    technically it is still "turn for A" ;-).

    The sample would be like

        (cat A; cat C) >file0; git commit file0  ; HEAD^^
        (cat A; cat C) >file1; git commit file1  ; HEAD^
        (cat A; cat B; cat C) >file1; git commit file1 ; HEAD
        git blame -C -C -C file1 HEAD

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to