Re: in_merge_bases() is too expensive for recent "pu" update

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Thomas Rast [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

diff --git i/commit.c w/commit.c
index 65a8485..70427ab 100644
--- i/commit.c
+++ w/commit.c

@@ -837,10 +837,13 @@ int in_merge_bases(struct commit *commit, struct commit **reference, int num)
 	struct commit_list *bases, *b;
 	int ret = 0;
 
-	if (num == 1)
-		bases = get_merge_bases(commit, *reference, 1);
-	else
+	if (num != 1)
 		die("not yet");
+
+	bases = merge_bases_many(commit, 1, reference);
+	clear_commit_marks(commit, all_flags);
+	clear_commit_marks(*reference, all_flags);
+	
 	for (b = bases; b; b = b->next) {
 		if (!hashcmp(commit->object.sha1, b->item->object.sha1)) {
 			ret = 1;

This ended up being part of the series I sent earlier, and I want to
assign authorship to you. As you did this as part of the discussion,
naturally the patch came without a sign-off.  Can we consider it
signed off?  Just saying "ok" is fine.

Sure:

  ok

;-)

I'm also mildly surprised that it ended up being correct, albeit with
some extra work from you :-)

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch