[MERGE/RFC] log -n0 -r 1..1.1.1 skips non-ancestrial revisions

[Marius Kruger]

hi,

when I do `log -n0 -r 1..1.1.1` I Expected:
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 1.1.1
committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
branch nick: tree2
timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
message:
 tree2 message2
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 3
committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
branch nick: work
timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
message:
 message3
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 2
committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
branch nick: work
timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
message:
 message2
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 1
committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
branch nick: work
timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
message:
 message1
----------------------------------------------------------------------



But I got:
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 1.1.1
committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
branch nick: tree2
timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
message:
 tree2 message2
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 1
committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
branch nick: work
timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
message:
 message1
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Full log for reference:
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 4 [merge]
revision-id: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-hv8giq1h3jomq4dd
parent: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-7j1ui21a5foszkuz
parent: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-l2a1epjm5ycjabr9
committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
branch nick: work
timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
message:
 merge
   ------------------------------------------------------------
   revno: 1.1.2
   revision-id: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-l2a1epjm5ycjabr9
   parent: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-yzg7cno3n5m5djsa
   committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
   branch nick: tree2
   timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
   message:
     tree2 message3
   ------------------------------------------------------------
   revno: 1.1.1
   revision-id: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-yzg7cno3n5m5djsa
   parent: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-mf61vd0uqw768bdx
   committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
   branch nick: tree2
   timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
   message:
     tree2 message2
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 3
revision-id: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-7j1ui21a5foszkuz
parent: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-btdipbhmnzr7m18t
committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
branch nick: work
timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
message:
 message3
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 2
revision-id: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-btdipbhmnzr7m18t
parent: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-mf61vd0uqw768bdx
committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
branch nick: work
timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
message:
 message2
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 1
revision-id: amanica at amanica-hplaptop-20090510205130-mf61vd0uqw768bdx
committer: Marius Kruger <amanica at amanica-hplaptop>
branch nick: work
timestamp: Sun 2009-05-10 22:51:30 +0200
message:
 message1
------------------------------------------------------------


As you can see it skips some revisions. After doing some debugging,
I realised that it skips them because they are not ancestors of the
end-revision.

To be able to know that we must show them, you have to generate the graph
AFAICT.
So I thought it might be reasonable to not delay_graph_generation
if the user wants to see merge_revisions.
This has a performance impact, but I wonder if it is acceptable either way
with or without this patch.

If performance is critical here we may be able to cheat a little for this
special case
and only do this if the user asked for a log up to a dotted revision (if
end_rev.find('.'))

-- 
<| regards
U| Marius
H| <><
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090510/e1e1fba3/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20090510_2309-log_reversed_dotted_revnos.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 10054 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090510/e1e1fba3/attachment-0001.bin