From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: Output from "git blame A..B -- path" for the bottom commit is misleading Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 23:32:01 +0200 Message-ID: <874n10ot2m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20140508212647.GA6992@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 08 23:32:10 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WiVvF-00041r-1V for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 08 May 2014 23:32:09 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755573AbaEHVcE (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2014 17:32:04 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:41503 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755492AbaEHVcD (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2014 17:32:03 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40544 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WiVv8-0003TC-CL; Thu, 08 May 2014 17:32:02 -0400 Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E4EADE0A47; Thu, 8 May 2014 23:32:01 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20140508212647.GA6992@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 8 May 2014 17:26:47 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> ( 103) >> 7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay 2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 104) test_expect_... >> ( 105) test... >> 7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay 2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 106) git ... >> ( 107) test... >> >> which does away with the misleading information altogether. >> >> I myself is leaning towards the latter between the two, and not >> overriding "-b" but introducing another "cleanse the output of >> useless bottom information even more" option. > > Though I rarely use boundary commits, this one makes the most sense to > me (when I do use them, I just mentally assume that the information in > the boundary line is useless; this is just making that more apparent). It is unclear to me what "this one makes the most sense to me" is referring to, in particular whether it encompasses the "and not overriding" part of the paragraph. -- David Kastrup