Lars Hjemli wrote:
quoted text
>On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg <srb@cuci.nl> wrote:
>>  So, I'd say, since the current code does not and cannot work reliably
>>  for anyone specifically using --first-parent (with every merge
>>  encountered, the probability of correctness is multiplied by 0.5 at
>>  most/least), you are going to do them a favour anyway by fixing the code,
>>  then why not simplify the convolution and make the code rock-steady (and
>>  implement my patch)?

quoted text
>The current 'next' branch in git.git contains your patch with my fixup
>on top and I believe this fixes _both_ the original issue with
>first-parent (thanks to your patch) and the issue Nanako discovered
>(thanks to my patch). Am I missing something?

Probably not.  I didn't check 'next' yet, since neither mine nor your
patch had been Acked on the list (I guess it shows that I don't know the
procedures here all too well yet).
-- 
Sincerely,                                                          srb@cuci.nl
           Stephen R. van den Berg.

What if there were no hypothetical questions?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html