Re: Inconsistencies with git log

["Jon Smirl" <jonsmirl@gmail.com>]

On 11/9/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > In fact, even at the top-of-tree, "git log" and "git log ." are two
> > totally different things [...]
>
> Btw, the reason (and really the *only* reason) this is interesting at all
> is just to show that the notion of "full history" and "relative pathnames"
> really have nothing to do with each other. They really are in totally
> different and orthogonal dimensions.

Should "git log" and "git log path"  have two different command names?

> "Full history" is something that exist *independently* of the pathnames.
>
> So the fact is, "git log" on its own is really about the *project*. It is
> totally pathname-independent, and I'd argue that many people are often
> just interested in the explanations (even though you obviously can also
> see the patches and the files changed too!) so I seriously doubt that this
> is just an implementation issue or my personal hang-up.
>
> In other words "git log" simply is something *global*. It doesn't matter
> where in the tree you are, the end result is the same - it's about the
> project as a whole.
>
> In contrast, "git log <filename>" is fundamentally different. Now you're
> explicitly stating that it's not something global any more, and that it's
> about the *files*. That's also why "git log" and "git log ." are acually
> different even at the top level.
>
> Because when you're interested in the files, by implication you're not
> interested in commits that don't change the files - and there can be such
> commits even when you give the *total* file list.
>
>                         Linus
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com