On 02/05/2013 23:05, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>> Z...A===X---o---o---B
>>>\\/
>>> W---Y
>>>
> OK, I think I understand it, and we are in agreement. For the
> purpose of the above paragraph, a side branch is what is not on the
> "--ancestry-path", so all of the
Kevin Bracey writes:
> On 01/05/2013 00:18, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>> These rules paying more attention to UNINTERESTING do add a tricky
>>> wrinkle to behaviour. Because limited revision lists are conventionally
>>> expressed as A..B (ie B ^A), the bottom commit is UNINTERESTING.
>> OK.
>>
>>>
On 01/05/2013 00:18, Junio C Hamano wrote:
These rules paying more attention to UNINTERESTING do add a tricky
wrinkle to behaviour. Because limited revision lists are conventionally
expressed as A..B (ie B ^A), the bottom commit is UNINTERESTING.
OK.
Thus
its connection to the INTERESTING gra
Kevin Bracey writes:
> The simplification and rewriting logic previously paid little heed to
> whether parents were UNINTERESTING, leading to situations where limited
> histories could unnecessarily include a lot of irrelevant merges along
> the boundary. Tighten up the rules to properly account
The simplification and rewriting logic previously paid little heed to
whether parents were UNINTERESTING, leading to situations where limited
histories could unnecessarily include a lot of irrelevant merges along
the boundary. Tighten up the rules to properly account for limited
lists:
1) If a mer
5 matches
Mail list logo