From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: How do I... Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 16:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <427B3DB3.4000507@tuxrocks.com> <7vsm10cnx3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1115404771.16187.343.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1115406628.16187.353.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1115421642.29495.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , Frank Sorenson , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 07 01:51:47 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DUCbV-0006WS-Vn for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 07 May 2005 01:51:34 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261337AbVEFXxf (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2005 19:53:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261293AbVEFXxO (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2005 19:53:14 -0400 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:32220 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261337AbVEFXww (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2005 19:52:52 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j46NqfU3016061 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 6 May 2005 16:52:41 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j46NqeMF007275; Fri, 6 May 2005 16:52:40 -0700 To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1115421642.29495.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.35__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.109 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 7 May 2005, David Woodhouse wrote: > > Nah, you just prune the commits from which aren't interesting, then dump > the graph you're left with. So instead of printing just the immediate > parent(s) for each interesting commit, you print the "nearest > interesting ancestor(s)". Nope. That's just stupid. Use the whole commit history, and if you want to simplify it from there once you notice that some branches end up never being interesting, then that's ok. But trying to be clever while building this up is just crazy talk. When diff-tree prints out the changes, it has no way of knowing what the context around it was - it doesn't know about merges far away, and it _shouldn't_ know. Linus