Hi Thomas,

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 03:17:41PM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:
> Jens Lehmann <jens.lehm...@web.de> writes:
> > Am 29.07.2013 21:37, schrieb Thomas Rast:
> >> Thomas Rast <tr...@inf.ethz.ch> writes:
> >> 
> >>> Thomas Rast <tr...@inf.ethz.ch> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Now that git log -L has hit master, I figure it's time to discuss the
> >>>> corresponding change to gitk.
> >>>
> >>> Paul, any news on this?  Any chance we can get it into the next release,
> >>> since that will also be the first release to ship with 'git log -L'?
> >> 
> >> Jens pointed out privately that the handling of unstuck -L options is
> >> unfortunate, to put it mildly.  I'll send a reroll.
> >
> > But as soon as that is fixed I'd really like to see this applied, as
> > I think gitk is the perfect tool to show history information.

One thing I worry about is having gitk storing in memory not just the
history graph but also all the diffs (assuming I have understood
correctly what you're doing).  Gitk's memory consumption is already
pretty large.  However, I can't see an alternative at this point.

> Unfortunately it's turning out to be harder than I hoped.  gitk runs the
> arguments through git-rev-parse, which only knows that -n gets an
> unstuck argument.  Consequently, gitk accepts an unstuck -n but only
> stuck forms of -S and -G.

Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean by "stuck" vs. "unstuck"?

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

Reply via email to