Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 03:25:31PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote: On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com writes: In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of itself. Why? People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these existing users a backward compatible change? Backward compatible in the sense that it does not break existing functionality And adding one-line-per-commit from side branches does break existing functionality. You seem to be arguing that more information is always good and does not break existing functionality, but summarizing by omitting irrelevant details *is* a feature. Do you honestly believe that a change to make the full log -p output in submodule log be a backward compatible change?? Merge branch topic1 into master Merge branch topic2 into master Merge branch origin/develop into master Merge branch topic3 into master It is not a real argument; it is something you can fix by naming your branches more sensibly, which would make you a better developer regardless of how submodule-log is shown. I just use git, I don't have the deep technical understanding of its implementation as you may have. From my perspective I can't think of how this breaks backward compatibility, or perhaps your definition of backward compatibility does not align with mine. Yes from your perspective and thats the only thing what Junio is criticising: Others might have a different perspective and thats why this change is not backwards compatible in a general sense. For you it might be but git is a very general tool. And please don't over generalize and misconvey what I said. I am not saying more information is always good. Did you not read anything I wrote? I do not see where Junio did that. The only thing he was trying to do is give an example why changing the default is not backwards compatible. Also good branch names may help but that doesn't go into detail and explain features that may have been sitting on a topic branch for weeks. That's not a practical solution to the problem. Also branch names do not determine or influence the skill and quality of a developer, as you seem to imply. Many people use the feature branch name as a kind of headline for the topic. So in that sense it explains or at least gives a hint what that feature was about. E.g. if you have the roadmap of a library you are using in mind and want to know whether the update you are about to commit contains a certain feature you were waiting for, that headline can be enough. You are right: Good commit messages and general naming does functionality wise not determine your development skills in the short term. On the other hand: In my experience good naming skills usually align with good development skills. Long term it also means that your code (and history) is easier to understand once others want to read your code and build on it. I'll do us both a favor and end the discussion here, as I do not feel you are being very patient or welcoming in the discussion. I sense frustration on your side. This is a typical situation which can happen in textual communication. You read something which is not there. A thing that happened to me as well when I submitted my first patch on a mailing list. But when I read the conversation years later I realized it was not really that offending as I experienced it. A general rule: People automatically appreciate what you do when they criticise to you. Criticism means that you have done something good (and worth criticising) but they want to make it better. I think viewing it that way helps to not take arguments personally. And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior. Careful, as that argument can cut both ways. If it is so a minor difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit --first-parent here. That would be even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything. I don't really understand your contrasted example here. Can you explain: ...we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit --first-parent... I am not sure how to phrase that any easier. Sorry. You mean you don't want to? That's fine, if you don't have the will or
Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com writes: In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of itself. Why? People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these existing users a backward compatible change? Backward compatible in the sense that it does not break existing functionality. For example, removing -D from `git branch` would be a backward breaking change. Also not everyone has a disciplined merge-commit editing policy like the Linux Git projects do. In fact (especially in corporate environments), most merge commit messages are useless and auto-generated. It's in fact very common (depending on popular tooling) to not have the ability to edit these messages. Example: Merge branch topic into master This is the defacto message you get when you use Github, Atlassian Stash, etc. any time you merge a PR. For repositories that only accept changes through pull requests, it is not possible to generate a diff log of submodules that is useful without showing the ancestor commits on all parents. Right now 'log' literally gives you the following for a submodule that has a mainline branch that does not accept direct pushes (i.e. only PRs): Merge branch topic1 into master Merge branch topic2 into master Merge branch origin/develop into master Merge branch topic3 into master I would argue that this situation is common -- more common than what you would typically see in a well groomed git repository that does not use PRs or always does rebase+ff-merge. That is the basis for my concern. No functionality is broken and cators to the common case. But I guess since we're discussing 2 distinct workflows, it makes sense to have 2 options for viewing the submodule logs. Because if 'full-log' were indeed the default, it would cause a lot of noise in the well-disciplined-merge-commit workflow. From a high level (to explain my motivation for my simplified and arguably naive suggestion), I work with a lot of amateur users of Git. They always complain about using Git and how SVN is better. Yet they do not accept the challenge of learning Git, which is a very complicated tool. Much of git I would argue is not very beginner (even user) friendly (although things are certainly getting better). With such an advanced tool, with such complex configuration and behavior, and given all the friction it causes, I can only do my best to offer seemingly sensible alternatives to adding MORE configuration. Anyway it's just a thought. Glad to get feedback and I see both sides of the fence on this one. And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior. Careful, as that argument can cut both ways. If it is so a minor difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit --first-parent here. That would be even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything. So, if you think the new behaviour can help _some_ users, then you would need the feature and a knob to enable it, I would think. I don't really understand your contrasted example here. Can you explain: ...we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit --first-parent... Again thanks for the feedback. I'm having some difficulty with the tests. What it looks like is that the test repository is created by calling test-lib.sh at the top. Then by the time the commands after that are run, it's inside the temp repository. At the bottom of t4041, I add this: test_create_repo sm3 git add sm3 cd sm3 echo foo.txt git add foo.txt git commit -m 'foo.txt' /dev/null git checkout -b topic /dev/null echo topic.txt git add topic.txt git commit -m 'topic.txt' /dev/null git checkout master /dev/null git merge --no-ff --no-edit topic /dev/null cd .. git diff --submodule=log sm3 But this does not work as I expect. How do I add a submodule and then simulate creation of branches, commits, and merges, prior to running code in text_expect_success? -- 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
Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits
Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com writes: In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of itself. Why? People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these existing users a backward compatible change? Backward compatible in the sense that it does not break existing functionality And adding one-line-per-commit from side branches does break existing functionality. You seem to be arguing that more information is always good and does not break existing functionality, but summarizing by omitting irrelevant details *is* a feature. Do you honestly believe that a change to make the full log -p output in submodule log be a backward compatible change?? Merge branch topic1 into master Merge branch topic2 into master Merge branch origin/develop into master Merge branch topic3 into master It is not a real argument; it is something you can fix by naming your branches more sensibly, which would make you a better developer regardless of how submodule-log is shown. And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior. Careful, as that argument can cut both ways. If it is so a minor difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit --first-parent here. That would be even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything. I don't really understand your contrasted example here. Can you explain: ...we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit --first-parent... I am not sure how to phrase that any easier. Sorry. Assuming that you consider output with and without --first-parent does not make much of a difference (i.e. minor difference in behaviour), instead of dropping --first-parent unconditionally, like you seem to be pushing with the argument, we can unconditionally keep the --first-parent and do not change anything. The end result would not make much of a difference either way, and not doing anything is much simpler than dropping --first-parent. Hopefully you can see how absurd that line of reasoning is. So do not make the same argument to push for changing the behaviour unconditionally. If you think the new behaviour can help _some_ users, then you would need the feature and a knob to enable it. -- 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
Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits
Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com writes: In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of itself. Why? People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these existing users a backward compatible change? And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior. Careful, as that argument can cut both ways. If it is so a minor difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit --first-parent here. That would be even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything. So, if you think the new behaviour can help _some_ users, then you would need the feature and a knob to enable it, I would think. -- 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
Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com writes: In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of itself. Why? People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these existing users a backward compatible change? Backward compatible in the sense that it does not break existing functionality. For example, removing -D from `git branch` would be a backward breaking change. Also not everyone has a disciplined merge-commit editing policy like the Linux Git projects do. In fact (especially in corporate environments), most merge commit messages are useless and auto-generated. It's in fact very common (depending on popular tooling) to not have the ability to edit these messages. Example: Merge branch topic into master This is the defacto message you get when you use Github, Atlassian Stash, etc. any time you merge a PR. For repositories that only accept changes through pull requests, it is not possible to generate a diff log of submodules that is useful without showing the ancestor commits on all parents. Right now 'log' literally gives you the following for a submodule that has a mainline branch that does not accept direct pushes (i.e. only PRs): Merge branch topic1 into master Merge branch topic2 into master Merge branch origin/develop into master Merge branch topic3 into master I would argue that this situation is common -- more common than what you would typically see in a well groomed git repository that does not use PRs or always does rebase+ff-merge. That is the basis for my concern. No functionality is broken and cators to the common case. But I guess since we're discussing 2 distinct workflows, it makes sense to have 2 options for viewing the submodule logs. Because if 'full-log' were indeed the default, it would cause a lot of noise in the well-disciplined-merge-commit workflow. From a high level (to explain my motivation for my simplified and arguably naive suggestion), I work with a lot of amateur users of Git. They always complain about using Git and how SVN is better. Yet they do not accept the challenge of learning Git, which is a very complicated tool. Much of git I would argue is not very beginner (even user) friendly (although things are certainly getting better). With such an advanced tool, with such complex configuration and behavior, and given all the friction it causes, I can only do my best to offer seemingly sensible alternatives to adding MORE configuration. Anyway it's just a thought. Glad to get feedback and I see both sides of the fence on this one. And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior. Careful, as that argument can cut both ways. If it is so a minor difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit --first-parent here. That would be even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything. So, if you think the new behaviour can help _some_ users, then you would need the feature and a knob to enable it, I would think. I don't really understand your contrasted example here. Can you explain: ...we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit --first-parent... Again thanks for the feedback. -- 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
Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com writes: In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of itself. Why? People have relied on submodule-log not to include all the noise coming from individual commits on side branches and instead appreciated seeing only the overview by merges of side branch topics being listed---why is regressing the system to inconvenience these existing users a backward compatible change? Backward compatible in the sense that it does not break existing functionality And adding one-line-per-commit from side branches does break existing functionality. You seem to be arguing that more information is always good and does not break existing functionality, but summarizing by omitting irrelevant details *is* a feature. Do you honestly believe that a change to make the full log -p output in submodule log be a backward compatible change?? Merge branch topic1 into master Merge branch topic2 into master Merge branch origin/develop into master Merge branch topic3 into master It is not a real argument; it is something you can fix by naming your branches more sensibly, which would make you a better developer regardless of how submodule-log is shown. I just use git, I don't have the deep technical understanding of its implementation as you may have. From my perspective I can't think of how this breaks backward compatibility, or perhaps your definition of backward compatibility does not align with mine. And please don't over generalize and misconvey what I said. I am not saying more information is always good. Did you not read anything I wrote? Also good branch names may help but that doesn't go into detail and explain features that may have been sitting on a topic branch for weeks. That's not a practical solution to the problem. Also branch names do not determine or influence the skill and quality of a developer, as you seem to imply. I'll do us both a favor and end the discussion here, as I do not feel you are being very patient or welcoming in the discussion. I sense frustration on your side. And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior. Careful, as that argument can cut both ways. If it is so a minor difference in behaviour, perhaps we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit --first-parent here. That would be even simpler to implement, as you do not have to do anything. I don't really understand your contrasted example here. Can you explain: ...we can do without not just an option but a feature to omit --first-parent... I am not sure how to phrase that any easier. Sorry. You mean you don't want to? That's fine, if you don't have the will or patience to explain then I won't bother caring. Assuming that you consider output with and without --first-parent does not make much of a difference (i.e. minor difference in behaviour), instead of dropping --first-parent unconditionally, like you seem to be pushing with the argument, we can unconditionally keep the --first-parent and do not change anything. The end result would not make much of a difference either way, and not doing anything is much simpler than dropping --first-parent. Hopefully you can see how absurd that line of reasoning is. So do not make the same argument to push for changing the behaviour unconditionally. If you think the new behaviour can help _some_ users, then you would need the feature and a knob to enable it. First of all, you keep calling this an argument. Perhaps it is for you, since you're being absurdly rude with me and impatient with the discussion. This is a brainstorming session. My suggestions may not seem rational or make sense, but this is natural since I am ignorant of the finer details of the application. You're really just overanalyzing my statements from a nonsensical perspective. I am talking about not adding more settings to an already complex set of settings. I am not justifying my feature. I think the feature is just as justified as everything else. Git is FULL of tons of little options to cater to niche workflows. I am not fighting against having another option. In fact, that was my idea to begin with. I am investigating and trying to discuss all possible approaches and perspectives. Your attitude is not very welcoming to those that wish to contribute to the project. In fact, because of your attitude towards me, I will kindly see myself out. I do not have time to spend my free time dealing with this nonsense and irrational
Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:18:11PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote: So I am working on trying to setup my environment (VM through Virtual Box) to do some testing on this. You all have encouraged me to try the mailing list review model. So I won't give up yet. I am not sure you need a VM or Linux environment. Of course it will be helpful in case your tests do no pass on Linux (which they sometimes do due to some differences between the OSes). But until we actually run into that problem I do not see anything wrong developing your change purely on Windows. Since it seems you are more familiar with that platform I would even encourage you to do so. That reduces the toolset friction which you might experience in a new environment. Even if you run into the problem, that your tests do not pass on Linux, we might be able to solve that on the list. Have you seen the github pull request - mailing list proxy thing[1]? If that helps you maybe you can test it and use it for your patch submission. I think nobody will be annoyed if we get some strange emails on the list during that testing phase since that might help more contributors to contribute. In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of itself. And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior. Thoughts? This behavior has been with --first-parent for a long time. Even though it seems like a minor change in my experience there will be complaints from people that have got used to it and will now get big differences. You never know how people use it. Since the extra value (full-log) (AFAIR) has reached a consensus on the list and it allows us to satisfy both long log and short log users I would prefer to go that route. Cheers Heiko [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/269699 -- 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
Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits
On 5/21/2015 7:51 AM, Heiko Voigt wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 02:29:55PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Heiko Voigt hvo...@hvoigt.net wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:06:32AM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote: Unfortunately I find it unintuitive and counter productive to perform inline patches or do anything on a mailing list. Especially on Windows, it's a pain to setup git to effectively do this. Also I read mailing lists through Gmail which does not offer a proper monospace font view or syntax coloring to effectively review patches and comments pertaining to them. Are you sure you are not overestimating the effort it takes to send patches inline? Once you've got your user agent correctly setup its just a matter of copy and paste instead of attaching the patch. On Windows I would probably use Thunderbird which has a section in the format-patch documentation how to configure it. Compared to the effort you probably spent on writing your patch isn't this bit of extra effort neglectable? And your patch is almost done. It just needs some tests and maybe a few rounds on the mailinglist after that. Since I am not willing to properly follow your process, I will withdraw my patch. However it is here if someone else wishes to take it over. Really wish you guys used github's amazing features but I understand that Linus has already made his decision in that matter. It not just Linus decision it is also a matter of many people are used to this workflow. AFAIR there have been many discussions and tries about using other tools. Email has many advantages which a webinterface does not provide. It is simply less effort that one person adjusts to this workflow instead of changing many peoples working workflow. I'm sorry I couldn't be more agreeable on the matter. Thanks for the time you spent reviewing my patch. If you are really this fixed in your workflow that would be too bad. How do you send your patches inline? Do you use git send-email? I have tried that and it is horrible to setup. Do you just copy/paste the patch inline in your compose window? For bigger patch series I did use send-email but currently I am back to just using the compose window from whatever email client I am using. On Windows that would be Thunderbird. But when possible I am not using Windows. It would be much simpler to fork Git, create a branch, make my change, and initiate a pull request. I can get email notifications on comments to my PR diff and address them with subsequent pushes to my branch (which would also automatically update the code review). Turn around times for collaborating on a change are much quicker via Github pull requests. I think that depends more on the collaborators than on the tool. When you get quick replies the turnaround times with both workflows are quick. It would be nice if there was a perfect solution for every project that everyone could use but unfortunately there is not so we sometimes have to adjust. But I think its more matter of what you are used to. If you did not have a github account but email software setup you could complain about the fact that you need to register a github account, fork git, setup that fork in your local repository, ... instead of just copy and paste your change into the compose window and then send it to a mailinglist. I am willing to review the typical workflow for contributing via git on mailing lists but I haven't seen any informative reading material on this. I just find using command line to email patches and dealing with other issues not worth the trouble. Lack of syntax highlighting, lack of monospace font, the fact that I'm basically forced to install mail client software just to contribute a single git patch. As already mentioned by Stefan there is Documentation/SubmittingPatches in the Git repository that describes everything and also has a section on how to do that with Thunderbird. I tend to not do much on the commandline on Windows since it basically sucks there. For sending patches you just need git format-patch HEAD^ and thats it. Cheers Heiko So I am working on trying to setup my environment (VM through Virtual Box) to do some testing on this. You all have encouraged me to try the mailing list review model. So I won't give up yet. In the meantime I'd like to ask, do we even need to add an option for this? What if we just make `diff.submodule log` not use --first-parent? This seems like a backward compatible change in of itself. And it's simpler to implement. I can't think of a good justification to add more settings to an already hugely complex configuration scheme for such a minor difference in behavior. Thoughts? -- 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
Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits
On Tuesday, 19 May 2015, Stefan Beller sbel...@google.com wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Robert Dailey rcdailey.li...@gmail.com wrote: How do you send your patches inline? This workflow discussion was a topic at the GitMerge2015 conference, and there are essentially 2 groups, those who know how to send email and those who complain about it. A solution was agreed on by nearly all of the contributors. It would be awesome to have a git-to-email proxy, such that you could do a git push proxy master:refs/for/mailinglist and this proxy would convert the push into sending patch series to the mailing list. It could even convert the following discussion back into comments (on Github?) but as a first step we'd want to try out a one way proxy. Unfortunately nobody stepped up to actually do the work, yet :( I've replied to this on a separate announcement thread on the Git mailing list here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/269699 ...I've created a new tool called submitGit, which aims to help. I am willing to review the typical workflow for contributing via git on mailing lists but I haven't seen any informative reading material on this. I just find using command line to email patches and dealing with other issues not worth the trouble. Lack of syntax highlighting, lack of monospace font, the fact that I'm basically forced to install mail client software just to contribute a single git patch. I'd be interested to know what you think! Roberto -- 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
Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits
Am 04.05.2015 um 17:05 schrieb Robert Dailey: On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Heiko Voigt hvo...@hvoigt.net wrote: Hi, On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:53:11PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote: I am attempting to diff a submodule modified in my working copy and the only difference is a merge commit. However, I do not get the full range of commits introduced by the merge commit when I diff it: $ git diff --submodule=log Core Submodule Core 8b4ec60..def2f3b: Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k' However if I go inside my submodule and run `git log` by hand, I get more information about the TRUE commits introduced: $ git log --oneline 8b4ec60..def2f3b def2f3b Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k' 015c961 Remove log spam in FontManager 7713ba1 Update third party submodule to latest 10aac78 Merge pull request #9 in FE/core from feature/FE-1348-selecting-continue-on-zero-balance to master-ah3k 287882f FE-1376 Nedd to remain in check detail screen when selecting donation after SBI a5a6bed Do not overwrite the current check# within loop dfb8547 Adding list of checks to CRspChecks before saving 1be280a FE-1354: Guest logged out in specific multiple check scenario de06d5a [FE-1348] Fix PATT exit while checks still open It's almost as if the `git diff --submodule=log` approach is passing in --first-parent to git log, which would exclude commits in the range that I'm seeing when I run git log manually. That is exactly the case. In prepare_submodule_summary() that option is set before doing the revision walk. Is this by design? Is there a way to enable the full log history with `git diff` on a submodule? This stems from the first implementation for showing submodule diffs in commit 752c0c24. I guess this was done deliberately to limit the amount of output you get for a submodule. At the moment this is hardcoded but I think there is nothing wrong with adding another option to include the full log. Cheers Heiko I will go ahead and work on this feature. Here is what I'd like to see: 1. `git diff --submodule` should have the ability to display full logs vs current logs (i.e. without --first-parent) I agree. Just recently I started missing that feature too at $DAYJOB. 2. `git submodule summary` should have an option to display full logs or first-parent logs. No objection against that. Maybe now is a good time to make `git submodule summary` use `git diff --submodule` internally to make them behave the same? For #1, do you recommend adding a 3rd setting for `diff.submodule` config? Something like full-log or something? Or an entirely new config? I'd go with a 3rd setting for diff.submodule (and full-log would have been my first choice too ;-). I noticed that in diff.h, the DIFF_OPT flags already consume 31 bits. If this is a 32-bit flag, there is only 1 bit left. If we go with a 3rd setting for `diff.submodule` I think this might consume the last bit. Yup. But I'm not sure we can do anything about it. We could also make `git diff --submodule` default to the full log type, and if users want only first parent logs in submodule summary, they'd have to execute `git submodule summary` instead. Please do not change defaults that people lived fine with for years lightly. But I won't object changing that on a major version if a majority of users request that. -- 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
Re: Diffing submodule does not yield complete logs for merge commits
Hi, On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:53:11PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote: I am attempting to diff a submodule modified in my working copy and the only difference is a merge commit. However, I do not get the full range of commits introduced by the merge commit when I diff it: $ git diff --submodule=log Core Submodule Core 8b4ec60..def2f3b: Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k' However if I go inside my submodule and run `git log` by hand, I get more information about the TRUE commits introduced: $ git log --oneline 8b4ec60..def2f3b def2f3b Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master-ah3k' 015c961 Remove log spam in FontManager 7713ba1 Update third party submodule to latest 10aac78 Merge pull request #9 in FE/core from feature/FE-1348-selecting-continue-on-zero-balance to master-ah3k 287882f FE-1376 Nedd to remain in check detail screen when selecting donation after SBI a5a6bed Do not overwrite the current check# within loop dfb8547 Adding list of checks to CRspChecks before saving 1be280a FE-1354: Guest logged out in specific multiple check scenario de06d5a [FE-1348] Fix PATT exit while checks still open It's almost as if the `git diff --submodule=log` approach is passing in --first-parent to git log, which would exclude commits in the range that I'm seeing when I run git log manually. That is exactly the case. In prepare_submodule_summary() that option is set before doing the revision walk. Is this by design? Is there a way to enable the full log history with `git diff` on a submodule? This stems from the first implementation for showing submodule diffs in commit 752c0c24. I guess this was done deliberately to limit the amount of output you get for a submodule. At the moment this is hardcoded but I think there is nothing wrong with adding another option to include the full log. Cheers Heiko -- 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
