git log --graph

git log --graph

[Dilip M]

I am using: git version 1.6.3.2

Somehow not getting text graph as mentioned in
http://www.gitready.com/intermediate/2009/01/26/text-based-graph.html

Any hints would really help..

I am trying git log --graph. (has commits in two branches...). But
always see one line :(




-- 
Dilip

Re: git log --graph

[Sverre Rabbelier]

Heya,

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 20:27, Dilip M <dilipm79@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am trying git log --graph. (has commits in two branches...). But
> always see one line :(

It'll show you the history of one branch at a time online, you won't
get the demo-ed multiple lines unless the branch you're looking at
contains merges.


-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier

Re: git log --graph

[Matthieu Moy]

Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> writes:

> Heya,
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 20:27, Dilip M <dilipm79@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am trying git log --graph. (has commits in two branches...). But
>> always see one line :(
>
> It'll show you the history of one branch at a time online, you won't
> get the demo-ed multiple lines unless the branch you're looking at
> contains merges.

That said, git log --graph --all will show multiple branches.

I personnally like the format of
git log --graph --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit
with ui.color set to true in ~/.gitconfig.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Re: git log --graph

[Jakub Narebski]

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

> I personnally like the format of
> 
>  $ git log --graph --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit
>
> with ui.color set to true in ~/.gitconfig.

You can use

  $ git log --graph --oneline

nowadays for that.  A bit shorter.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: git log --graph

[Dilip M]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heya,
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 20:27, Dilip M <dilipm79@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am trying git log --graph. (has commits in two branches...). But
>> always see one line :(
>
> It'll show you the history of one branch at a time online, you won't
> get the demo-ed multiple lines unless the branch you're looking at
> contains merges.

Understood. it shows only when I have merged conflicts!

In case, it is a fast forward merge. It doesn't show. Which is good :)

Thanks to all.


-
Dilip

Re: git log --graph

[B Smith-Mannschott]

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 20:27, Dilip M <dilipm79@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am using: git version 1.6.3.2
>
> Somehow not getting text graph as mentioned in
> http://www.gitready.com/intermediate/2009/01/26/text-based-graph.html
>
> Any hints would really help..
>
> I am trying git log --graph. (has commits in two branches...). But
> always see one line :(

"one line"?
1 of history? (i.e. the history of the current branch, but not the other)
2 of text?
3 --pretty=oneline?

assuming your problem is 1:

git log --all --graph

//ben

Re: git log --graph

[Matthieu Moy]

Dilip M <dilipm79@gmail.com> writes:

> Understood. it shows only when I have merged conflicts!
>
> In case, it is a fast forward merge. It doesn't show. Which is good :)

Fast-forward and merge conflicts are two different things. Non-fast
forward occurs when you merge two branches which are not a direct
ancestor of each other, i.e. both have commits that the other do not
have.

In case of non-fast forward, if you didn't touch the same file in both
branches, the merge is still trivial and conflict-free. If you touched
the same files, then Git has to apply in-file merge strategy, but that
doesn't mean you'll get conflicts either. Conflicts will occur when
you touched the same part of the same file.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/