Re: Linux 2.6.12-rc3

Pavel Machek
2005-04-24T07:26:08Z

Hi!

On Ne 24-04-05 01:23:03, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 01:18:39AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> told me that...
> > git patch origin:
> >
> > will list my patches, plus any merges I done... Is there any
> > reasonable way to get only "my" changes? When I do not have to resolve
> > anything during merge, it should be usable... but that is starting to
> > look ugly.
>
> I told you the semantics is peculiar.
>
> We could add a flag to rev-tree to always follow only the first parent;
> that would be useful even for a flag for git log to "flatten" the
> history, if you aren't interested in what was going on in the trees you
> just merged.
>
> Another flag to avoid showing patches for merges might be possible, but
> actually a little scary since you don't have consistency assured that
> way; your post-merge patches might generate rejects when applied on top
> of the pre-merge patches, or your pre-merge patches might not apply
> cleanly on the tree you merged with.
>
> So if you want to ignore merges, it sounds that you are probably
> actually doing something wrong. We might still let you do it
> assuming

Right. Actually right thing might be to "only show human-made part of
each merge" or something like that. Ignoring merges altogether is not
quite right. OTOH really only small part of merge is going to
matter...
Pavel
--
Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java.