Re: [PATCH v8 00/10] commit-reach: terminate merge-base walk when one side is exhausted

Kristofer Karlsson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.git
Message-ID <CAL71e4NMdOeL0Mwngpw9qn=sSctFEVMPiYEiWQ=LT+Ct-mP02Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 at 08:23, Elijah Newren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I am quite pleased with how this series has turned out.  Not only does
> it provide nice speedups, I think the structure of the series is
> particularly nicely set up in a way that helps guide the discovery of
> the idea behind the optimization for others to read, documents and
> tests everything logically and thoroughly, and was a pleasant read.
>
> I brought up several issues in previous versions, and this round
> addresses them all.

That's very much appreciated, I know this has been a lot of content
to review and there has been some unfortunate churn, especially
around the textual sections.

> >       +For v1, `paint_down_to_common()` falls back to pure commit-date
> >      -+ordering via `compare_commits_by_commit_date`.  Because commit
> >      ++ordering via `compare_commits_by_commit_date`. Because commit
> >       +dates are not monotonic (clock skew, rebases, etc.), the queue
> >       +may visit commits out of topological order.
>
> Don't think for a second that I didn't notice you murdering these
> double spaces.  You villain!  ;-)

Yes, well spotted -- this was unfortunate but needed I think.
I realized that this document was inconsistent, so I decided
to standardize on single spaces because that was the smaller
change and it also aligned with other technical documents
(such as commit-graph.adoc) ...

> >   3:  f857577e0c !  3:  6208bcf3b3 t6600: add test cases for side-exhaustion edge cases
>
> ...and now you're just toying with us.  :-)

... and here I just restored your tests to their original glory,
despite making the patch series as a whole feel a bit inconsistent.

Overall though, I wonder if it would be useful to codify a
preference for double or single spacing after periods, even if
that (obviously) does not imply we should reformat the entire
code-base directly.

> Okay, my last two range-diff comments were just jokes, but more
> serious now: I think you did a nice job on the re-splitting.  Thanks
> for doing that!

Thank you, writing documentation feels harder (for me)
than coding, but I'm somewhat happy with the end state now :)

- Kristofer
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.