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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011CBC77B7C for ; Fri, 5 May 2023 17:30:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232030AbjEERau (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 May 2023 13:30:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59870 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231920AbjEERas (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 May 2023 13:30:48 -0400 Received: from mail-yw1-x112f.google.com (mail-yw1-x112f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F05417FDE for ; Fri, 5 May 2023 10:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-x112f.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-559debdedb5so29893957b3.0 for ; Fri, 05 May 2023 10:30:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1683307846; x=1685899846; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=t+Yw5la5ejo328QUX9CIvOA3RWMEEeC4azcN66khL60=; b=AiC4sPL+wdD5l7evHr4TUuUOvNgK3OaJNbkl+5JChGQf3rFxFBkleWPn98ydajh+Yf g9OhkezbfgVBwxsF61zNYAt6e0thmQ6FTr21sot/eeiX+kM7nnVAwDmAOxC2dEveGaTG Zlfbgz08B+S7FEoXIqkN/DRSvNNRDSDBkG8SWK8d/UC7GokmkO977LfZKH8PXCxSLbte j+zpBCQ02Y3cWvHM9HZVdlIEVaAHjnxfiI20SJvQSyVQtHpkzYmUr8l2iWGBk/OhJ6NN GfAChxQdEpfaoQsBkTYP3BFZmhllwTdRltLZSBOqAV6U5GmcKdWse+XgPzieYE4fpeUR L88w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683307846; x=1685899846; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=t+Yw5la5ejo328QUX9CIvOA3RWMEEeC4azcN66khL60=; b=k/jJLFccXmaRUYYWlYRfIog2/0w9vpGy0xWnfxxqVQdmCWRpvjyrQkT+0xkUWRAd6t +odKQFG4FZWvia0a6CgiGGdjiy7bFVIDLqOuQRHMCzVcJ1Cxw3Jq1nuXdsMWuVU9oqks +WBTCJq2WqnLWTuDmIljgl8j+Sp6a2h6a1s0Ub0J2/e8Z5L/wWlnoJXxwM6Xr2/9yv5H lzfQPsHFD6TyqNcirlg2MVKHQ06CUkp0Z/AxEgc7WHaqYHKtyWc3uVioT9+IyIg2YtEk kdyMpZLFvI6FA/JVXv/1+2ag22Cx9O6x4RXAccVLZOHU8Zgxbi/fg3bBaINrtySRgp0O s6pA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzDsACeSV6iTbKL9ltbzqIZZGAo1PthYEuIjIRYJfypoF3JZ5Oo /wMCEfvoRI4P20eSog6L6/w8/Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6DIE2Pp3tR1SMzrMdvTOVJBncTwdBDREy2UiE03fb59WalEQsEBLctG643PuLvnUMBvMAbbQ== X-Received: by 2002:a0d:cdc6:0:b0:544:9180:3104 with SMTP id p189-20020a0dcdc6000000b0054491803104mr2359107ywd.34.1683307846193; Fri, 05 May 2023 10:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l127-20020a0dfb85000000b0054c082bad36sm586665ywf.120.2023.05.05.10.30.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 05 May 2023 10:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 13:30:45 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Derrick Stolee Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] revision: support tracking uninteresting commits Message-ID: References: <0b8884ea-f37b-b7d4-6edb-825ca935a893@github.com> <7a0ea3d7-f67b-8f9d-f9ea-550fcc05108d@github.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7a0ea3d7-f67b-8f9d-f9ea-550fcc05108d@github.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 09:59:32AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > It's interesting that it walked more commits than you wanted. I > suppose it's somehow related to the boundary condition you're > implying by enabling the construction of this list. > > Could you describe the situation where more commits are walked > than you want? I imagine we can't actually stop at the boundary > because we need to know that certain commits are actually reachable > from those boundary commits. I honestly cannot remember, and was unable to reproduce it when I reworked the substantive portion of this series last night. For posterity, Stolee and I had an off-list discussion yesterday where he walked me through his suggestion to implement the boundary search via a straightforward revision walk, instead of grafting onto cherry-picked components of the revision internals. It works great, and I have been unable to trick it into "walking too much". Thanks, Taylor