You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently this tool requires a linear history, git merges confuse the line analyzer and cause errors. By tracking the parents of a merge commit (and also adapting the diff format for merges which has multiple added/deleted/context columns), it should be possible to do better analysis even with merges.
While coming back to my code this week after not looking at it for years, I found a pile of commits and some uncomitted code that intends to handle merge commits. I am not sure if it is actually complete, but on a quick test it does seem to work (no errors, no clue if the output is correct).
I've pushed all the code out to the https://github.com/matthijskooijman/patchdeps/tree/wip-handle-merge-commits branch, in case anyone is interested in this feature (might be me if I ever need this tool again, but not now. Maybe @pmhahn?). This branch might need some careful rebasing, since it was made (way before) the refactoring in #2.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently this tool requires a linear history, git merges confuse the line analyzer and cause errors. By tracking the parents of a merge commit (and also adapting the diff format for merges which has multiple added/deleted/context columns), it should be possible to do better analysis even with merges.
While coming back to my code this week after not looking at it for years, I found a pile of commits and some uncomitted code that intends to handle merge commits. I am not sure if it is actually complete, but on a quick test it does seem to work (no errors, no clue if the output is correct).
I've pushed all the code out to the https://github.com/matthijskooijman/patchdeps/tree/wip-handle-merge-commits branch, in case anyone is interested in this feature (might be me if I ever need this tool again, but not now. Maybe @pmhahn?). This branch might need some careful rebasing, since it was made (way before) the refactoring in #2.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: