Web lists-archives.com

Re: Revision walking, commit dates, slop




Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On 5/20/2019 7:02 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>>>
>>> Are there any blockers that prevent the switch to this
>>> "generation number v2"?
[...]

>>                      Using the generation number column for the corrected
>> commit-date offsets (assuming we also guarantee the offset is strictly
>> increasing from parent to child), these new values will be backwards-
>> compatible _except_ for 'git commit-graph verify'.
>
> O.K., so the "generation number v2 (legacy)" would be incremental and
> backward-compatibile in use (though not in generation and validation).
>
> Do I understand it correctly how it is calculated:
>
>   corrected_date(C) = max(committer_date(C),
>                           max_{P ∈ parents(C)}(corrected_date(P)) + 1)

This should probably read

    offset_date(P) = committer_date(P) + gen_v2(P)
    corrected_date(C) = max(committer_date(C),
                            max_{P ∈ parents(C)}(offset_date(P)) + 1)    

>   offset(C) = corrected_date(C) - committer_date(C)
>   gen_v2(C) = max(offset(C), max_{P ∈ parents(C)}(gen_v2(P)) + 1) 
>
> Do you have benchmark for this "monotonically offset corrected commit
> date" generation number in https://github.com/derrickstolee/git/commits/reach-perf
> and https://github.com/derrickstolee/gen-test ?

--
Jakub Narębski