Re: Bug in merge-base

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:

Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:17:12AM CEST, I got a letter
where Daniel Barkalow [off-list ref] told me that...

quoted

I can think of. Are you sure there isn't another path to 5b53d3?

I'm not. Actually there well might be.

I think merge-base should never take a path which is effectively
"upside-down" when a straight "upside" one is available.

Hmm. So what I depended on for merge-base was that when doing it on A
and B and A is predecessor of B, then it will always just return A.  I
will perhaps need to abuse rev-tree somehow for this then, it looks.

It is currently optimizing for the shortest longer path, but I guess it
should optimize for the shortest shorter path (i.e., the 0-length path
from A to itself always wins).

On the other hand, the date-based comparison (which you'd get with the
version I sent yesterday with [2/4] and [4/4]) would give you the most
recent common ancestor, which would necessarily avoid this situation.

Do you want to go with the date-based approach, or should I work out a 
shortest shorter path algorithm?

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*