Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

git-deps shows unrelated commits when dependency of 'merge' commits are checked #54

Open
vigneshraman opened this issue Jul 22, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@vigneshraman
Copy link

I'm using the git-deps tool for linux kernel backporting work.

When git-deps is run to find any dependent commits in linux kernel there is a chance it encounters 'merge' commits. git-deps output is very huge when it checks dependency for 'merge' commits and git-deps needs to be stopped manually since it runs for a very long time.

Maybe '--no-merges' needs to be used to avoid merge commits?

@aspiers
Copy link
Owner

aspiers commented Jul 22, 2015

Are you using -r? That is known to run for an extremely long time in many cases. We actually need some way to limit recursion to a maximum depth (see also #16), or to a given list of revision ranges.

But --no-merges sounds like it could be a good idea too. Again it would help if you could provide an exact testcase with which I can reproduce the issue.

Thanks for the report!

@aspiers
Copy link
Owner

aspiers commented Jul 22, 2015

BTW you should find git-deps -d quite useful for understanding how the algorithm works.

@vigneshraman
Copy link
Author

I'm using the git-deps tool for linux kernel backporting work.

Yes I used -r option. I will check -d option, Thanks.

I'm backporing a commit from v3.12 to v2.6

So the use case is:
I want to backport commit '48d9eb97dc74d2446bcc3630c8e51d2afc9b951d' from master to 'v2.6_branch'

git-deps -r -e v2.6_branch 48d9eb97

This runs for long time when it tries to find dependency for commit a107e5a3a473a2ea62bd5af24e11b84adf1486ff which is a merge commit.

@aspiers
Copy link
Owner

aspiers commented Feb 21, 2016

Sorry I didn't find time to look at this yet. I haven't forgotten about it though.

@vigneshraman
Copy link
Author

Thanks. Please check if #55 fixes the above mentioned problem.

@aspiers
Copy link
Owner

aspiers commented Feb 27, 2016

Thanks, I will!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants