From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [Feature Request] git blame showing only revisions from git rev-list --first-parent Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:37:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20150916173704.GA2727@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20150911140133.GA14311@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20150912033054.GA30431@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20150913100728.GA26562@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20150915100538.GA21831@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Stephen Connolly , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 16 19:37:22 2015 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 1ZcGe0-0001e9-RV for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:37:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752935AbbIPRhO (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:37:14 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:60129 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752524AbbIPRhN (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:37:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 14523 invoked by uid 102); 16 Sep 2015 17:37:13 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:37:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 20254 invoked by uid 107); 16 Sep 2015 17:37:16 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:37:04 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:14:26PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > It seems like nobody is actually that interested in what "blame > > --first-parent --reverse" does in the first place, though, and there's > > no reason for its complexity to hold up vanilla --first-parent. So what > > do you think of: > > I like the part that explicitly disables the combination of the two > ;-) Meaning you didn't like the other part, or that you'll pick up the patch as-is? :) -Peff