From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "René Scharfe" <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
Cc: Francis Moreau <francis.moro@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Subject: Re: Can't find the revelant commit with git-log
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:47:46 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vsjwcb6rh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D437CA0.1070006@lsrfire.ath.cx> ("René Scharfe"'s message of "Sat\, 29 Jan 2011 03\:34\:08 +0100")
René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes:
> Perhaps we should check my underlying assumption first: is it reasonable
> to expect a git log command to show the same commits with and without a
> path spec that covers all changed files?
The simplest case would be "git log ." vs "git log" from the root level of
the repository, right? Traditionally, the former is "please show _one_
simplest history that can explain how the current commit came to be"
(i.e. with merge simplification), while the latter is "please list
everything that is behind the current commit" (i.e. without), I think.
It feels unintuitive, but my understanding of the rationale behind the
design is that, the expectation Linus had when he first did the pathspec
limited traversal was that most of the time "git log $path" is used to get
an explanation. It follows that having to say "git log --simplify $path"
would have been a nuisance, so "with pathspec, we simplify" was thought to
be a reasonable default.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-29 5:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-25 9:01 Can't find the revelant commit with git-log Francis Moreau
2011-01-25 16:12 ` René Scharfe
2011-01-25 17:44 ` Francis Moreau
2011-01-26 8:36 ` Francis Moreau
2011-01-26 10:44 ` Johannes Sixt
2011-01-26 20:56 ` Francis Moreau
2011-01-26 21:03 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2011-01-26 21:08 ` Francis Moreau
2011-01-26 21:14 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2011-01-26 21:31 ` Francis Moreau
2011-01-26 21:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-01-26 21:32 ` Francis Moreau
2011-01-26 18:11 ` René Scharfe
2011-01-28 20:29 ` René Scharfe
2011-01-29 0:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-01-29 2:34 ` René Scharfe
2011-01-29 5:47 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2011-01-29 20:26 ` René Scharfe
2011-02-01 21:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-02-07 22:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-02-10 18:50 ` René Scharfe
2011-01-29 20:26 ` René Scharfe
2011-01-28 22:01 ` René Scharfe
2011-01-29 12:52 ` Francis Moreau
2011-01-29 13:02 ` René Scharfe
2011-01-29 13:57 ` Francis Moreau
2011-01-29 15:17 ` René Scharfe
2011-01-26 9:01 ` Francis Moreau
2011-01-26 18:39 ` René Scharfe
2011-01-26 19:50 ` Francis Moreau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7vsjwcb6rh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=francis.moro@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=j6t@kdbg.org \
--cc=rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).