From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Wagner Subject: Re: 'git log' numbering commits? Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:15:56 +0200 Message-ID: <4F869D4C.8090108@monom.org> References: <4F868A24.9090004@monom.org> <20120412084122.GG31122@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 12 11:16:06 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 1SIG8J-00053i-Pf for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:16:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762207Ab2DLJP6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:15:58 -0400 Received: from hotel311.server4you.de ([85.25.146.15]:37651 "EHLO hotel311.server4you.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752866Ab2DLJP5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:15:57 -0400 Received: from candlejack.bmw-carit.intra (mail.bmw-carit.de [62.245.222.98]) (Authenticated sender: wagi) by hotel311.server4you.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A510CBE0A8; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:15:55 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0 In-Reply-To: <20120412084122.GG31122@sigill.intra.peff.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi Jeff, On 12.04.2012 10:41, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:54:12AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: > >> My workflow involves a lot of "git rebase -i". For figuring out which >> commit id to use I do first a 'git log --oneline'. Then I do copy past >> the id to the 'git rebase -i'. The reason why I don't use relative >> id such as HEAD~4, because I keep miscounting the commits. >> >> So my question is there a magic option to have git log to enumerate the >> commits, e.g. >> >> 1: 2fcd2b3 network: Remove unused function >> 2: b376b2a session: Fix introspection for Change() >> 3: 15c9cd0 wifi: Refactor desctruction of network object >> 4: a9c699f network: Remove device pointer in network_remove() > > No, there is no such feature. You can do this: > > git log --oneline | nl "-s: " Obviously, I tend to forget the power of the pipes :) > but that will just give you the count of commits shown. If the history > is not a single line of development, then those numbers will become > meaningless quickly. Also note that there is an off-by-one in this > scheme; HEAD~2 will be numbered as "3". > > If you wanted to simply decorate each commit with a more readable name, > you could do this: > > git log --format='%H: %s' | > git name-rev --stdin --name-only > > though for simplicity, you may find that you prefer to name only based on > the current tip. You can do that like this: > > git log --format='%H: %s' | > git name-rev --stdin --name-only \ > --refs `git symbolic-ref HEAD` > > which yields output like: > > your-topic: network: Remove unused function > your-topic~1: session: Fix introspection for Change() > your-topic~2: wifi: Refactor desctruction of network object > your-topic~3: network: Remove device pointer in network_remove() Didn't know about name-ref. Very cool :) > However, if you really just want this to make "rebase -i" easier, have > you considered setting the upstream branch config for your branches? > When I create a topic branch, I do: Maybe I should have mentioned that on those project I am mostly working, we don't have branches (ConnMan, BlueZ, oFono). So we have a very simple history. > git checkout -b topic origin/master > > And then "git rebase -i @{upstream}" rebases everything up to my > upstream branch (origin/master). That may be slightly more than I want, > but it lets me see the whole series in the "rebase -i" sequencer. Recent > versions of git even default to "@{upstream}", so you can just say "git rebase > -i". The main reason I avoided branches is that I have several topics at the same time and having a single branch and maintaining them by hand was so far easier. > How do you usually create your branches? What version of git are you > using (the "@{upstream}" default is in v1.7.6 and later)? Normally I only have for big changes branches but for a few independent fixed I just use the master branch and fix the patches. But I see, I should over think my workflow here :) I am using git trunk :) I'll try the @{upstream} trick. Thanks a lot for this elaborate answer. cheers, daniel