This patch removes an unnecessary sort from the t6001 testcase.
Sorts were previously necessary when testing non --merge-order cases
because the output order wasn't entirely deterministic unless commit
date was fixed.
However, commit dates are now fixed, so the need for a sort has
disappeared. So the sort has been removed.
Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
This fix fixes a t/t6001 test case break that was hidden by a bug in the
test case infrastructure.
Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Junio discovered a problem where an actual test case break was hidden
because pipelines are not handled properly by the test infrastructure in
t6001.
This patch fixes the broken infrastructure (and demonstrates the break
explicitly).
A subsequent patch in this series will fix the test case so that it
doesn't fail.
Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
This patch makes --merge-order produce the same list as git-rev-list
without --merge-order specified.
In particular, if the graph looks like this:
A
| B
|/
C
|
D
The both git-rev-list B ^A and git-rev-list --merge-order will produce B.
The unit tests have been changed to reflect the fact that the prune
points are now formally part of the start list that is used to perform
the --merge-order sort.
That is: git-rev-list --merge-order A ^D used to produce
= A
| C
It now produces:
^ A
| C
Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Added a test case that shows that --merge-order doesn't produce the
correct result in the following case.
A
|
| B
|/
C
|
D
git-rev-list --merge-order A ^B should produce just A. Instead
it produces BCD.
A subsequent patch will fix this defect.
Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
git-rev-list --merge-order is omitting one of the roots when
displaying a merge containing two distinct roots.
A subsequent patch will fix the problem.
Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
1. --merge-order doesn't deal properly with a specified head that has no parent
* FAIL 11: head has no parent
2. --merge-order doesn't deal properly with arguments of the form
head ^head
* FAIL 30: head ^head --merge-order git-rev-list --merge-order
--show-breaks a3 ^a3
3. if one of the specified heads is reachable from the other, the
head gets printed twice and this causes problems for upcoming
versions of gitk. This is true for both --merge-order and non
--merge-order style of invocations.
* FAIL 24: one specified head reachable from another a4, c3, --merge-order
* FAIL 26: one specified head reachable from another a4, c3, no --merge-order
* FAIL 27: one specified head reachable from another c3, a4, no --merge-order
4. --merge-order aborts with commits that list the same parent twice...it should handle it more gracefully.
* no longer unit testable
5. broken interaction between --merge-order and --max-age
previously posted as:
"[PATCH 1/2] Test case that demonstrates problem with --merge-order, --max-age interaction"
* FAIL 23: --max-age=c3, --merge-order
Later patches in this patch set fix these problems.
Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
This patch fixes three bugs in --merge-order support
* mark_ancestors_uninteresting was unnecessarily exponential which
caused a problem when a commit with no parents was merged near the
head of something like the linux kernel
* removed a spurious statement from find_base which wasn't
apparently causing problems now, but wasn't correct either.
* removed an unnecessarily strict check from find_base_for_list
that causes a problem if git-rev-list commit ^parent-of-commit
is specified.
* added some unit tests which were accidentally omitted from
original merge-order patch
The fix to mark_ancestors_uninteresting isn't an optimal fix - a full
graph scan will still be performed in this case even though it is
not strictly required. However, a full graph scan is linear
and still no worse than git-rev-list HEAD which runs in less than 2
seconds on a warm cache.
Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
