On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 07:17:26PM +0400, Jason Zaman wrote: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 12:03:29PM +0700, C Bergström wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > > C Bergström posted on Sun, 05 Jul 2015 01:17:41 +0700 as excerpted: > > > > > >> I super don't like "merge" workflows. > > >> 1) "merge commits" are confusing at best and normal tools don't display > > >> and work with them as you'd always expect > > > > > > git log --graph, as others have mentioned. > > > > we are not talking about the same thing. > > > > I want to see the "diff" - not the graph. > > > > svn diff -r 1234 > > git show <hash> > > > > show me the "merge" commit in diff format > > So this isn't a good comparison. You are asking for a merge commit in > git and a normal commit in svn. Svn can branch but it is so complicated > that no one ever does it. If you were similarly to never ever make > branches in git its not a huge deal. (There are not *that* many pushes > to the tree, if you look at #gentoo-commits there is plenty of time > between commits.) > > While I personally rebase almost all of my stuff, merges are important > when taking contributions. A good example would be the main linux kernel > tree, if Linus were to merge everything it would be incredibly difficult > to figure anything out.
I'm with Duncan on this. I think I understand what he's asking for... I think he is asking the question, "What changed in commit <hash>". If you use the hash of a merge commit with "git show", you get nothing, so the merge commit is useless in terms of following changes. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
