Re: [Q] Abbreviated history graph?

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Brian Foster wrote:
> 
>   A colleague and I recently wanted to examine the
>  history in a broad sense without worrying too much
>  about the individual commits.  What we (think we)
>  wanted is a ‘gitk --all’ history graph showing only
>  “named” historical points;

Ok, this is actually really easy to do with git. We have all the 
infrastructure in place, and what you're asking for is fundamentally 
really just an odd form of commit history simplification. Instead of 
comparing the *contents* of the commits (the trees) to see if they are 
interesting, you'd only check if there is a decoration (ie a tag or a 
branch) pointing to the commit.

I'll post a simple series of four commits in a moment. They're all 
trivial, and the first three are just setting stuff up (in fact, the very 
first one is a commit I've already posted, and it's technically totally 
unrelated, but since it touches the same area as one of the other ones, 
I'm too lazy to try to separate it out).

Patchbombing to commence in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1..

		Linus