Sebastian Schuberth <sschube...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Sebastian Schuberth
>> <sschube...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Felipe Contreras
>>> <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 1) Passing just "HEAD" as a committish like in "git contacts HEAD"
>>>>> does not output anything for me, but using the SHA1 for HEAD does
>>>>> neither. My HEAD commit does not add any files, but only modifies
>>>>> previously existing files, so I would have expected some output. In
>>>>> case it turns out to be correct to have no output in my case, could we
>>>>> probably say that in some message to the user?
>>>> It should be HEAD^, or -1, like with 'git format-patch'.
>>> Oh, that's pretty much unexpected. Wouldn't it be much more natural if
>>> I had to specify the commit(s) that introduce(s) the changes that I
>>> want others to look at?
>> Yeah, that's exactly what you are doing. How do you tell 'git log' to
>> show you certain changes?
> I'm not sure what you're trying to point me at. It's clear that from
> an implementation view you need to blame HEAD^ if you need to know
> which poeple should review your changes in HEAD.
I agree that the situation when providing only HEAD is really
> But IMHO that is an implementation detail that should be hidden from
> the user.
... but it's not just an implementation detail: git-contacts takes a
range of commits, so you can ask for people to Cc for a whole patch
series for example.
If I understand correctly, "git contact $ONE_COMMIT" does
"git contact $ONE_COMMIT..HEAD" implicitly, and this is weird when
$ONE_COMMIT is HEAD.
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