[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: git apologia
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: git apologia |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:14:14 +0900 |
Eli Zaretskii writes:
> Actually, it turns out neither this nor HEAD~n is what I want. What I
> want is to display information about commits N..M where N and M are
> ordinal numbers from the linear "git log" output.
I'm not sure how you would go about doing that in git. The ~ notation
follows first parents, as "bzr log -n1" would. Your use of --skip
seems to be the best way to accomplish what you want.q
> And waddaya know? HEAD~n etc. seem to _skip_ merge-commits,
It only seems to do so. In my (not quite up-to-date) emacs repo,
"git log @address@hidden" displays no merges, but apparently that's because
there's a long sequence of non-merges (fast-forwards) on mainline.
However, "git log @~10..@" displays several, as does
"git log @address@hidden".
Or by "merge-commits" do you mean the off-trunk commits?
> so (a) the counts end up being wrong, and (b) if you want to see
> those merge-commits, you need to _know_ they are merge-commits and
> then use HEAD^2 etc. (i.e. explicitly request the 2nd parent).
> This is awful.
If you say so, I guess it is for you. I'm curious why it's useful to
you. In the situation I imagine, I typically fire up another terminal
and do "git log | less" rather than try to guess at appropriate n and
m. Or use gitk. Is it just that those aren't quite as efficient for
you, or do you have a different purpose for -n..-m?
- Re: git apologia [was: git pull fails with merge conflicts. ...], (continued)
- Re: git apologia, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/16
- Re: git apologia, Andreas Schwab, 2014/11/16
- Re: git apologia, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/16
- Re: git apologia, Andreas Schwab, 2014/11/16
- Re: git apologia, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/16
- Re: git apologia, Andreas Schwab, 2014/11/16
- Re: git apologia, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/16
- Re: git apologia, Teemu Likonen, 2014/11/16
- Re: git apologia,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: git apologia, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/17
- Re: git apologia, Andreas Schwab, 2014/11/17
- Re: git apologia, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/17
- Re: git apologia, David Kastrup, 2014/11/17
- Re: git apologia, Achim Gratz, 2014/11/17
- Re: git apologia, Yuri Khan, 2014/11/17
- Re: git apologia, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2014/11/18
- Re: git apologia, John Yates, 2014/11/18
- Re: git apologia, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2014/11/18
- Re: git apologia, Andreas Schwab, 2014/11/18