From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: Can't find the revelant commit with git-log Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:44:31 +0100 Message-ID: <4D3FFB0F.9070700@viscovery.net> References: <4D3EF650.20407@lsrfire.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Scharfe?= To: git@vger.kernel.org, Francis Moreau X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 26 11:44:42 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pi2rh-0006S1-Ov for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:44:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752581Ab1AZKog (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:44:36 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:10972 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751159Ab1AZKof (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:44:35 -0500 Received: from cpe228-254-static.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pi2rY-0006HD-9H; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:44:32 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB061660F; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:44:31 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Please don't set Mail-Followup-To; it's disliked on this list. Am 1/26/2011 9:36, schrieb Francis Moreau: > I tried to reproduce something similar but with a far more simple repo: > > > 1.f o > | > 1.e o (merge) > | \ > 1.d o o 2.c (merge) > | | \ > 1.c o o o 3.a "Remove blacklist_iommu()" > | | / > | o 2.a > | / > 1.b o > | > 1.a o "Introduce blacklist_iommu()" > | > o Init > > Basically this repo 3 branches: master, 2, 3. Master branch introduces > the "blacklist_iommu()" function with commit 1.a, and branch "3" removes > it at commit 3.a. > ... > So in this case there's no need to pass the '-m' flag and git-log(1), by > default walks through all the commits: To reproduce the real history, you have to modify your example in three ways: 1. 2.a must be forked off of Init, not 1.b; i.e., this commit does not contain "blacklist_iommu". 2. Drop the side branch that removes the word. (Drop at least the commit.) 3. The merge 1.e (which resembles d847059) must be modified such that it takes the contents of 2.c rather than 1.d. IOW, "blacklist_iommu" is not removed explicitly by a commit, but rather by a merge of one branch that has it and another one that doesn't have it. Look closely at d847059: The commit message hints at a conflict in intel_iommu.c, and Ingo resolved the conflict by taking the contents of the file of one branch, namely the branch that does *not* contain "blacklist_iommu", ignoring entirely what happend on the other branch (that had added "blacklist_iommu" somewhere at or before v2.6.27). -- Hannes