I think the change onticker.py's side should look something like

diff --git i/lib/matplotlib/ticker.py w/lib/matplotlib/ticker.pyindex 89e077a04..84bd9a2b4 100644--- i/lib/matplotlib/ticker.py+++ w/lib/matplotlib/ticker.py@@ -2093,9 +2093,7 @@ def is_decade(x, base=10):   def is_close_to_int(x):-    if not np.isfinite(x):-        return False-    return abs(x - round(x)) < 1e-10+    return abs(x - np.round(x)) < 1e-10   class LogLocator(Locator):@@ -2256,7 +2254,11 @@ class LogLocator(Locator):             # If we're a minor locator *that expects at least two ticks per             # decade* and the major locator stride is 1 and there's no more             # than one minor tick, switch to AutoLocator.-            return AutoLocator().tick_values(vmin, vmax)+            ticklocs = AutoLocator().tick_values(vmin, vmax)+            # Don't overstrike the major labels.+            ticklocs = ticklocs[+                ~is_close_to_int(np.log(ticklocs) / np.log(b))]+            return ticklocs         return self.raise_if_exceeds(ticklocs)      def view_limits(self, vmin, vmax):

after which I don't know if the other changes (touching labelOnlyBase) are needed?

Yeah that might be better.

Not sure we should be implying that a locator is a minor locator. My preference would be that we just explicitly pass the major locator instance to anything we want to be a minor locator and then do a set diff between the two locators Or simply doing this in the axis code after the fact where we know about both locators.

The log locator code already has "magic" to guess whether it's a minor or a major locator; given that it's already assuming that it works we may as well rely on it.
As argued in a bunch of other places it is indeed suboptimal that tickers don't really know whether they are major or minor, but adding more logic to clean that up on the axis side seems worse.

I'd argue that the "magic" is probably a bad idea because it relies on the user knowing the magic when they specify the Locator, and as we have seen, even the developers don't get the "magic" right.

I think there are two approaches - 1) tell the locator explicitly what ticks to avoid with an optionalmajor_ticks=None kwarg, or 2) get the ticks from both locators, and then exclude any overlaps in the minor ticks.

I guess I think 1) is the best because I can think of cases where the minorLocator might want to exclude a tick because it isclose but not equal to a major tick. I don't see why we can't impliment this as aLocator._remove_duplicates method that defaults on all Locators to removing all the duplicates in the__call__. If child classes want to ignore all this they can, so I don't think it'd be a backwards incompatibility issue.

(BTW implimenting your change to squash the bug, the other discussion is more long-term)

I think there are two approaches - 1) tell the locator explicitly what ticks to avoid with an optional major_ticks=None kwarg, or 2) get the ticks from both locators, and then exclude any overlaps in the minor ticks.

I would name thisexclude_ticks=None, which is more general. It may take a list of values and/or (possibly also later implemented) a locator.

Owee, I'm MrMeeseeks, Look at me.

There seem to be a conflict, please backport manually. Here are approximate instructions:

1. Checkout backport branch and update it.

$ git checkout v3.0.x$ git pull

2. Cherry pick the first parent branch of the this PR on top of the older branch:

$ git cherry-pick -m1 71dd3ae125d060bc08193abb93cca643245e3de0

3. You will likely have some merge/cherry-pick conflict here, fix them and commit:

$ git commit -am 'Backport PR #13126: FIX: minor log ticks overwrite'

4. Push to a named branch :

git push YOURFORK v3.0.x:auto-backport-of-pr-13126-on-v3.0.x

5. Create a PR against branch v3.0.x, I would have named this PR:

"Backport PR#13126 on branch v3.0.x"

And apply the correct labels and milestones.

Congratulation you did some good work ! Hopefully your backport PR will be tested by the continuous integration and merged soon!

If these instruction are inaccurate, feel free tosuggest an improvement.

Automatic backport fails due to#12865 not being backported. We should either backport both or none.

Moved both to 3.1. The logic around the log ticks is subtle and probably better to keep changes to it for minor release (not patch releases).