From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Output from "git blame A..B -- path" for the bottom commit is misleading Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 20:11:45 -0400 Message-ID: <20140509001145.GA8734@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20140508212647.GA6992@sigill.intra.peff.net> <874n10ot2m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: David Kastrup X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 09 02:11:52 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 1WiYPn-0007EE-VY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 09 May 2014 02:11:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754522AbaEIALs (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2014 20:11:48 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:47818 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753520AbaEIALr (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2014 20:11:47 -0400 Received: (qmail 8827 invoked by uid 102); 9 May 2014 00:11:47 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Thu, 08 May 2014 19:11:47 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 08 May 2014 20:11:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874n10ot2m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:32:01PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > 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. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that the output format shown there makes the most sense of the ones shown. I'd actually be inclined to say the opposite of what Junio is saying there: that "-b" should blank the author field as well as the commit sha1. I'd even go so far as to say that "-b" should probably be the default when boundary commits are in use. I cannot think of a time when I have found the boundary information useful, and the IMHO the output above is less confusing than what we produce now. But I admit I haven't thought very hard on it. -Peff