On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:28:06AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > (though I suspect it would interact oddly with the "--reverse" option,
> > and we would want to either declare them mutually exclusive or figure
> > out some sane semantics).
> It is entirely unclear who the first child is, so I tend to think
> that they have to be mutually exclusive.
That's my thinking, too, but I didn't want to rule out somebody thinking
of something clever.
> > Your problem is not the presence of "--merges" here, but that you forgot
> > the necessary "file" argument. Try "git blame --merges foo.c".
> > However, this suffers from the same problem as --first-parent, in that
> > it is accepted but not respected. Doing so would not be impossible, but
> > it is a little more than the two-liner above.
> What the command does when it "respects" it is unclear to me.
> In a history like this:
> \ \
> and starting at H, pretend everything that happened in, B, C, E and
> F since A was done by G? Who gets the blame for what A or H did?
In general, I would expect "git blame" with revision arguments to behave
as if it was fed the history graph (including parent rewriting). So in
this case, I would think it would blame everything before G on G
(assuming there are no merges before A), and everything in H would be
"not yet committed".
That being said, we do not seem to rewrite parents for min/max parent
cases even in "git log". I'm not sure why, nor can I seem to provoke it
with simplification options. So maybe I am missing something clever.
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