Jeff King <> writes:

> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 07:04:05AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Arguably if the user explicitly limited the range, he knows what he's
>> looking at. Admittedly, I don't know offhand which options _will_
>> produce boundary commit indications: there may be some without explicit
>> range limitation, and we might also be talking about limiting through
>> shallow repos (git blame on a shallow repo is probably a bad idea in the
>> first place, but anyway).
> Yes, I was thinking mostly of "X..Y" types of ranges, which are probably
> the most common. I hadn't considered shallow repositories, and you can
> also hit the root commit as a boundary if you do not specify --root.
> I guess the question still in my mind is: what use does the identity of
> the boundary commit have? That is, whether you know ahead of time where
> the boundary is or not, is there ever a case where knowing its author
> and/or commit sha1 is a useful piece of information, as opposed to
> knowing that we hit a boundary at all?
> I could not think of one, but I may simply lack imagination.

Well, the original message was triggered by the same "I could not
think of one" from me ;-).

We may want to flip the default to do a more sanitised version of "-b"
that has been suggested earlier:

>              (                                         103) 
>     7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay  2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 104) test_expect_...
>              (                                         105)         test...
>     7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay  2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 106)         git ...
>              (                                         107)         test...
> which does away with the misleading information altogether.

and have another option to show the current default output for those
who would want that information.

But that will be a topic for post 2.0; I should start preparing for
the -rc3 soonish, so I'll stop here.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to