On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 03:40:43PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > That makes sense to me. We omit "c" because it doesn't touch "b.t", and > obviously include "b", which does. We _do_ include the boundary commit, > even though it doesn't touch the path, which makes sense to me. It > remains a boundary whether it touched the path or not, and without it, > we get no boundary at all. > > But now if I limit to "a.t", I get no output at all: > > $ git log --format='%m %s' --boundary a..c -- a.t > > whereas I would have expected "- a" to show the boundary. > > Is this a bug, or are my expectations wrong?
So I suppose it depends how you define "boundary" commits. In get_revision_internal(), I see this comment: /* * boundary commits are the commits that are parents of the * ones we got from get_revision_1() but they themselves are * not returned from get_revision_1(). Before returning * 'c', we need to mark its parents that they could be boundaries. */ By that definition, obviously if we do not have any commits to show, then we have no boundary commits. I don't think this definition is anywhere in the user-facing documentation, though. It still seems weird to me, and I wonder if we should show all UNINTERESTING commits as boundaries in the case that we haven't produced any positive commits at all. But perhaps there is a case where that would not be desirable. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html