From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: git-show --stat on first commit Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:06:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20061121180643.GC7201@pasky.or.cz> References: <200611211341.48862.andyparkins@gmail.com> <8aa486160611210609h1c2d229ekf0b5e8aeb4f21f11@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:07:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Peter Baumann , git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-message-flag: Outlook : A program to spread viri, but it can do mail too. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gma1C-0004UA-VD for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:06:54 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031251AbWKUSGr (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:06:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031246AbWKUSGq (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:06:46 -0500 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:47841 "EHLO machine.or.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031256AbWKUSGq (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:06:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 932 invoked by uid 2001); 21 Nov 2006 19:06:43 +0100 To: Linus Torvalds Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 05:31:30PM CET, Linus Torvalds wrote: > git didn't end up doing that (and I'm personally pretty happy about it), > but it was one of the things I was kind of thinking about: a "git import" > kind of thing would have created an initial commit which was pre-populated > with the thing to import, and a "git init-db" would have created an > initial root commit that was empty. > > That would have made the current "don't show the root diff" behaviour very > natural (and you'd still have gotten the initial diff for a new project), > but on the other hand, it would have had that annoying unnecessary "init" > commit, and you'd _still_ have wanted to have something like "--root" in > order to show the import commit as a patch (which you _sometimes_ want to > do). It's being asked by users time by time (first in April last year ;) and I'm not sure about any good answer I should tell them, so is the reason for not doing the implicit empty commit that it would be "annoying" I suppose in the log output? Is that a reason good enough? It would solve some of these annoying corner cases nicely, and you can still hide this empty commit from log output etc. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ The meaning of Stonehenge in Traflamadorian, when viewed from above, is: "Replacement part being rushed with all possible speed."