"Bernhard R. Link" <brl+...@mail.brlink.eu> writes: > * Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> [140113 23:31]: >> I read the updated documentation three times but it still does not >> answer any of my questions I had in $gmane/239888, the most >> important part of which was: >> >> Yeah, the cherry-picked one will introduce the same change as >> the one that was cherry-picked, so if you look at the end result >> and ask "where did _this_ line come from?", there are two >> equally plausible candidates, as "blame" output can give only >> one answer to each line. I still do not see why the one that is >> picked with the new option is better. > > Because: > - it will blame the modifications of merged cherry-picked commit > to only one commit. Without the option parts of the modification > will be reported as coming from the one, parts will be reported > to be from the other. With the option only one of those two commits > is reported as the origin at the same time and not both. > - it is more predictable which commit is blamed, so if one is > interested in where some commit was introduced first into a > "mainline", one gets this information, and not somtimes a different > one due to unrelated reasons. > >> To put it another way, why/when would an end user choose to use this >> option? If the result of using this option is always better than >> without, why/when would an end user choose not to use this option? > > While the result is more consistent and more predictable in the case > of merged cherry picks, it is also slower in every case.
Consistent and predictable, perhaps, but I am not sure "exact" would be a good word. Wouldn't the result depend on which way the cherry pick went, and then the later merge went? In the particular topology you depicted in the log message, the end result may happen to point at the same commit for these two paths, but I am not sure how the change guarantees that "we always point at the same original commit not the cherry-picked one", which was implied by the log message, if your cherry-pick and merge went in different direction in similar topologies. And that is why I said: At best, it looks to me that it is saying "running with this option may (or may not) give a different answer, so run the command with and without it and see which one you like" With the stress on "different" answer; it the change were "with the option the result is always better, albeit you will have to wait longer", I would not have this much trouble accepting the change, though. -- 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