From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB51C3B18C for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:08:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391C420656 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:08:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="dgQGyAux" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728801AbgBMQIU (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:08:20 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:65340 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387411AbgBMQIS (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:08:18 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076A63D4BC; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:08:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=ymzo0jqztu2W bAqI8zKSS3sY2go=; b=dgQGyAuxxu2z0aiH8TtVFDcZsVaDFzAhUcGpm0v1DXRY CL9LbWSECAF5t58UKF+rEVWmmLhATcQU4bMn/RImvAO9BL4s9Fh8zWhqQjCjq1aG zK9i9x4VegoJCTVDEgcShlLxxky8Vi1PQKiw3JoUKKucn5Rd3jirKzPi01VeQiE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=upJ7iO ErAgCJm7v7ctxZU8QzGkPOWfTKWLv48U7M0o94N4xNWqG9apRZoKg5+1CqpZ+icn z528f1qUKTKDJ/0fZpP1W9X9mFPexuUsoNfH7nILff611kVaMz/9GqodLTQPnSn6 shrEZVPR+2/MYmebaQE/SsjP5fu6FhuOHLum0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1563D4BB; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:08:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BA3A3D4B9; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:08:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, dstolee@microsoft.com, martin.agren@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] builtin/commit-graph.c: support '--input=none' References: <4e85c6f7e40e7d6a8d93574645d65971b7cfa4f8.1581486293.git.me@ttaylorr.com> <20200213123129.GQ10482@szeder.dev> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 08:08:15 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20200213123129.GQ10482@szeder.dev> ("SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A1bor=22's?= message of "Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:31:29 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0B275856-4E7B-11EA-97E3-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org SZEDER G=C3=A1bor writes: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 09:47:57PM -0800, Taylor Blau wrote: >> In the previous commit, we introduced '--split=3D'= , >> and alluded to the fact that '--split=3Dmerge-all' would be useful for >> callers who wish to always trigger a merge of an incremental chain. >>=20 >> There is a problem with the above approach, which is that there is no >> way to specify to the commit-graph builtin that a caller only wants to >> include commits already in the graph. > > I'd like clarification on a detail here. Is it only about not adding > any new commits, or about keeping all existing commits as well? IOW, > do you want to: > > - include only commits already existing in the commit-graph, without > adding any new commits, but remove any commits that do not exist > in the object database anymore. > > or: > > - include _all_ commits already existing in the commit-graph, even > those that don't exist anymore in the object database, without > adding any new commits. FWIW, I read it as the former, but now you brought it up, it can be read either way. Thanks for good review comments, as always.