From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A011720193 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 20:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965422AbcHDUJK (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:09:10 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:54957 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965411AbcHDUJJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:09:09 -0400 Received: (qmail 12782 invoked by uid 102); 4 Aug 2016 20:09:09 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:09:09 -0400 Received: (qmail 15563 invoked by uid 107); 4 Aug 2016 20:09:37 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:09:37 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:09:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:09:05 -0400 From: Jeff King To: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG?] --boundary inconsistent with path limiting Message-ID: <20160804200905.7xdiei2yfv2aw6im@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20160804194043.z4nbosr4wpbzljdl@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160804194043.z4nbosr4wpbzljdl@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 03:40:43PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > That makes sense to me. We omit "c" because it doesn't touch "b.t", and > obviously include "b", which does. We _do_ include the boundary commit, > even though it doesn't touch the path, which makes sense to me. It > remains a boundary whether it touched the path or not, and without it, > we get no boundary at all. > > But now if I limit to "a.t", I get no output at all: > > $ git log --format='%m %s' --boundary a..c -- a.t > > whereas I would have expected "- a" to show the boundary. > > Is this a bug, or are my expectations wrong? So I suppose it depends how you define "boundary" commits. In get_revision_internal(), I see this comment: /* * boundary commits are the commits that are parents of the * ones we got from get_revision_1() but they themselves are * not returned from get_revision_1(). Before returning * 'c', we need to mark its parents that they could be boundaries. */ By that definition, obviously if we do not have any commits to show, then we have no boundary commits. I don't think this definition is anywhere in the user-facing documentation, though. It still seems weird to me, and I wonder if we should show all UNINTERESTING commits as boundaries in the case that we haven't produced any positive commits at all. But perhaps there is a case where that would not be desirable. -Peff