From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Problem using GIT CVS-server Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:21:22 -0700 Message-ID: <7vmzdyby99.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <445865A5.5030700@lumumba.uhasselt.be> <46a038f90605030311s4e05de2dr90277f97a3a5c223@mail.gmail.com> <46a038f90605030411o29af1d1bra3276353347516f6@mail.gmail.com> <7v1wvaevno.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <46a038f90605031412s363b4a79p548c75956b00adbf@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 03 23:21:56 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FbOml-0005v1-BK for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 23:21:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751355AbWECVVY (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2006 17:21:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751356AbWECVVY (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2006 17:21:24 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.241.36]:46506 "EHLO fed1rmmtao03.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751355AbWECVVY (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2006 17:21:24 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060503212123.DLDG19317.fed1rmmtao03.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Wed, 3 May 2006 17:21:23 -0400 To: "Martin Langhoff" In-Reply-To: <46a038f90605031412s363b4a79p548c75956b00adbf@mail.gmail.com> (Martin Langhoff's message of "Thu, 4 May 2006 09:12:39 +1200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Martin Langhoff" writes: >> Could you see if the attached patch helps? > > Will try it in a moment. Having thought about it, git-log is always > going to be tweaked for human consumption, so I should use something > geared for porcelains instead. git-rev-list does honour --parent, so > perhaps I should switch to using that instead? I think that reasoning is prudent, but at the same time I think the patch by Linus is also right, so I think we should do both for this particular case. Sorry about the breakage.