Re: Linux v2.6.12-rc6

Linus Torvalds
2005-06-07T17:26:29Z

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Erik Mouw wrote:
>
> Well, it's nice to know which repos you pulled from for a particular
> release, that makes it easier to figure out what's wrong if/when
> something breaks.

Well, the thing is, you don't actually get a full list - you at best get a
_partial_ list of the merges I do. In fact, it's almost always a proper
subset, with (wild wag) 10% of the merges never showing up.

If a repo has already merged with me on the far end, my merge will be just
a "fast-forward to what they did", which won't show up as a separate
commit.

Similarly, if somebody is on a different time-zone from me and just
happens to do his work while I'm sleeping, and I pull the tree first thing
in the morning, there won't be any overlapping development and again it's
just a fast-forward. So no merges at _all_ may be showing on either side
in that case..

This very much does happen, exactly because we have a "merge often"

> Isn't the easy fix to put the long changelog information on a single
> line?

Sure. It's just a shell script that generates the message:

merge_name=$(echo "$1" | sed 's:\.git/*$::')
if [ "$2" ]
then
merge_name="'$2' branch from

$merge_name"
merge_head="refs/heads/$2"
fi

but the reason I do it on multiple lines is that that looks better in the
long format, I think.

But maybe the short format is the one I should prioritize, since that's
the one that also shows up in the summary line for the graphical tools
(webgit and gitk).

Linus