From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610491F6BF for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:21:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752117AbcIAWVC (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:21:02 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:60157 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750771AbcIAWVB (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:21:01 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536673A0E4; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:21:00 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=wQkXrqthOvAojVyIuCLS5L7OMxc=; b=DEfZWd 0PcZcRB9qU2sXFJ1OXdj8799qnAbAZqtWZajRo+bE44ppnzWj+l4/YzZIbHqFEwQ popY2HuiocBFgShxs58JXBuV349WI0QJ31WHMKh7lgpvofBr61uYiR2MkaXNUhIC 3EwRMBLhxaoOQk1RVnvlo9Qygk/z53MEUQ4fY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=RV5RKKdrHWEZqfbmPgN0mgLSNhgqVGNa LSQbVZHmbYXvOQl9q0cZ2V7DUzKqr9RDhL8Re6nuvJG90WISzZwIJoVRrvhejg+j N3vcdu0iseGsKdkFSOH99obUsdoZpJqWEl0zxJGdvWvnv2REP/R8+9Mcp9cNmb1h zni0G4XN4VY= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0873A0E3; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C17BC3A0E2; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:20:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Philip Oakley" Cc: "Git List" Subject: Re: Are --first-parent and --ancestry-path compatible rev-list options? References: <2FA1998250474E76A386B82AD635E56A@PhilipOakley> <1BC836ACA8C741AD9732122B3B198752@PhilipOakley> Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 15:20:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1BC836ACA8C741AD9732122B3B198752@PhilipOakley> (Philip Oakley's message of "Thu, 1 Sep 2016 21:48:14 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5C55BA58-7092-11E6-ACD7-F7BB12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Philip Oakley" writes: > The user question was, given a commit 'J', and a future commit 'H' > (typically a branch tip such as 'master'), find those commits that are > : > A) merges > B) on the first parent DAG chain of the future commit 'H' > C) children of the given commit 'J' The answer then is that there is no such single step operation. In the picture, if D or E were a merge from a side branch that does not have anything to do with 'J', "log --first-parent --merges" will not exclude it (i.e. C won't be fulfilled by --first-parent --merges).