From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Engster Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 18:52:06 +0100 Message-ID: <874mbu5ttl.fsf@engster.org> References: <56EE8B27.3090208@gmx.at> <83d1qp6on1.fsf@gnu.org> <56EEEE19.4000800@gmx.at> <8360wh6l1a.fsf@gnu.org> <56EEF6DA.3050104@gmx.at> <56EFA47D.8020303@cs.ucla.edu> <83zitr6civ.fsf@gnu.org> <83lh5b66jj.fsf@gnu.org> <8360wf5gmz.fsf@gnu.org> <83wpou4hb4.fsf@gnu.org> <83oaa30wjs.fsf@gnu.org> <87vb4azznm.fsf@engster.org> <83egay25nj.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3eyzt20.fsf@engster.org> <83a8lm1w5s.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1qi5yz6.fsf@engster.org> <8360wa1myk.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458928349 3787 80.91.229.3 (25 Mar 2016 17:52:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:52:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: johnw@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 25 18:52:20 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ajVuG-0005Xg-6P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 18:52:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57312 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ajVuC-0007iM-DH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:52:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60291) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ajVu9-0007i9-0m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:52:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ajVu5-0001Mj-PR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:52:12 -0400 Original-Received: from randomsample.de ([5.45.97.173]:43076) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ajVu5-0001Lg-G3; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:52:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=randomsample.de; s=a; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=9x7CJ541AGDNRryedd1zbzDvNHd4tWOajLAK5C/Frd0=; b=BJFnMoSSYThOMB1PlY29i7uDADU+65I/31znRNyDCV3pw8OkYUmtL0reg5G4DBdoeApW38FFlmHLP5vzaqvHxfsbw1klPNMGFqFfbZKOgLAJop8Fu+GHSBVe+0005iu5; Original-Received: from ip4d1494ed.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de ([77.20.148.237] helo=isaac) by randomsample.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ajVu4-0000pX-2o; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 18:52:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: <8360wa1myk.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:33:55 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13001 (Ma Gnus v0.10) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 5.45.97.173 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:202236 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: David Engster >> Cc: johnw@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:00:45 +0100 > >> >> > After all this, what would you expect "git annotate" to show on the >> > master branch as the commit that introduced the affected source lines? >> > Shouldn't it show the original commit, i.e. 9835757? Because it >> > doesn't show that, it shows ad879b7 instead. If that's expected >> > behavior, then I _really_ don't understand what "skip" means here, >> > since it sounds like it didn't use the "ours" strategy, according to >> > your definition. What am I missing? >> >> Well, the cherry-picked commit ad879b7 is now in master's history. The >> patch of that diff shows that it changes those lines. That we chose to >> ignore the patch can only be seen by looking at the merge commit >> 300560577, which references the same 'tree' as the previous merge >> 'cb4e054e', meaning they both reference they same set of files: >> >> > git cat-file 300560577 -p >> tree ae2bec4f10425bd61e2a90563edc178d382bb4b8 >> [...] >> >> > git cat-file cb4e054e41c -p >> tree ae2bec4f10425bd61e2a90563edc178d382bb4b8 >> >> My best guess is that 'git annotate' does not incorporate that >> information, but I'm not familiar with the inner workings of that >> command. Maybe no one bothered to implement it, or maybe it would make >> annotation even slower. > > So I guess the fact that a commit was skipped during a merge is > something that is so hard to see that perhaps the entire issue of > skipping is moot with Git, and we shouldn't be bothered by it. Well, it's not *that* hard to see, but it usually requires to look at a span of commits. In this case, git diff cb4e054e41c..300560577 will correctly produce nothing. But I agree it's unfortunate that you cannot see this from the merge commit alone. But I'm not sure what you mean with the entire issue being moot. How do you suggest we deal with commits that shouldn't land in master? -David