Replies: 1 comment 3 replies
-
Hi @dastbe, yeah, I think it's an unintended effect of #430. The decision of which commits to include is a little difficult; I guess we actually want to respect the definition of "visible" commit? There should also be a If you want to fix this issue, I'm happy to guide you. It should be as simple as replacing the computation of "difference with hidden commits" to "intersection with active commits", where |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
3 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Sharing an example from a coworker
and then running the following
It's surprising behavior that no form of
commit (a)
appears in the ancestry ofcommit (b)
. Is this an unintended effect of #430?Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions