From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git log -z doesn't separate commits with NULs Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:16:58 -0500 Message-ID: <20120224211658.GA30922@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <4F462E61.4020203@gmail.com> <4F4643BB.8090001@gmail.com> <20120223193451.GB30132@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vy5rt2u0c.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4F475689.4040203@gmail.com> <20120224095253.GC11846@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vsji0xalg.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120224204615.GB21447@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vk43cx7c2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Nikolaj Shurkaev , Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 24 22:17:08 2012 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 1S12Vn-0007bN-AG for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:17:07 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932226Ab2BXVRB (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:17:01 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:56034 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756160Ab2BXVRA (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:17:00 -0500 Received: (qmail 29106 invoked by uid 107); 24 Feb 2012 21:17:02 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:17:02 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:16:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vk43cx7c2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 01:14:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > True. That is also a slightly dangerous thing to do, though, because you > > are omitting full patches in the middle that touch the same paths as the > > patches you include.... > > ... So > > perhaps we are better off to refer the user to git-log(1), say that > > commit limiting options in general would work, but be careful with > > sending a partial result. > > You seem to have spelled out everything I originally wrote in my reply > that I later deleted before sending it out, and I think the reason that > brought you to the three-line conclusion is the same one that made me I > delete them ;-). OK, good. :) Nikolaj, have you followed all of this? Do you want to try to improve your patch in this direction? -Peff