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: Fri, 09 May 2014 21:59:22 +0200 Message-ID: <87lhuayb8l.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20140508212647.GA6992@sigill.intra.peff.net> <874n10ot2m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20140509001145.GA8734@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87zjiro856.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20140509152935.GD18197@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 10 15:24:31 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 1Wj7GR-0007JV-Bi for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 10 May 2014 15:24:31 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753874AbaEJNYX (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 May 2014 09:24:23 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:36275 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752845AbaEJNYW (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 May 2014 09:24:22 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35306 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wj7GG-0003cR-Tu; Sat, 10 May 2014 09:24:21 -0400 Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 651AAE07CB; Fri, 9 May 2014 21:59:22 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 09 May 2014 10:28:19 -0700") 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: Junio C Hamano writes: > Jeff King writes: > >> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 07:04:05AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> >>> Arguably if the user explicitly limited the range, he knows what he's >>> looking at. Admittedly, I don't know offhand which options _will_ >>> produce boundary commit indications: there may be some without explicit >>> range limitation, and we might also be talking about limiting through >>> shallow repos (git blame on a shallow repo is probably a bad idea in the >>> first place, but anyway). >> >> Yes, I was thinking mostly of "X..Y" types of ranges, which are probably >> the most common. I hadn't considered shallow repositories, and you can >> also hit the root commit as a boundary if you do not specify --root. >> >> I guess the question still in my mind is: what use does the identity of >> the boundary commit have? That is, whether you know ahead of time where >> the boundary is or not, is there ever a case where knowing its author >> and/or commit sha1 is a useful piece of information, as opposed to >> knowing that we hit a boundary at all? >> >> I could not think of one, but I may simply lack imagination. > > Well, the original message was triggered by the same "I could not > think of one" from me ;-). If it's the root commit, omitting all info may surprisingly make "who should I yell at" hard. I also am not sure about the implications in connection with --reverse. In connection with explicit -b however, I think it is nonsensical to blank out only the commit id. -- David Kastrup