On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:50:57AM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> I know that with the `git branch` command I can determine which
> branches contain a commit. Is there a way to represent this
> graphically with `git log`? Sometimes I just have a commit, and I need
> to find out what branch contains that commit. The reason why `git
> branch --contains` doesn't solve this problem for me is that it names
> almost all branches because of merge commits. Too much ancestry has
> been built since this commit, so there is no way to find the "closest"
> branch that contains that commit.
> Is there a way to graphically see what is the "nearest" named ref to
> the specified commit in the logs?
Have you tried "git describe --contains --all <commit>"?
To some degree, I fear your question isn't something git can answer. If
the branch containing the commit has been merged into other branches,
then they all "contain" the commit. There is not really any reason to
prefer one over the other ("describe --contains" will try to find the
"closest" branch, but that is based on heuristics and is not necessarily
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