Re: questions / suggestions about history simplification

2013-12-26 Thread Junio C Hamano
Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org writes: OTOH, including a sample repository embedded within the git repository is either impossible or very ugly (e.g. having a non-default value of GIT_DIR for the embedded repository). But I doubt you were suggesting that ;-) No. By the way,

Re: questions / suggestions about history simplification

2013-12-22 Thread Adam Spiers
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 10:44:43PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org writes: I doubt it. 75% of the work for such a person to understand the behaviour from such an example is to understand what kind of history the example is building. Agreed. And that's

Re: questions / suggestions about history simplification

2013-12-21 Thread Junio C Hamano
Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org writes: I doubt it. 75% of the work for such a person to understand the behaviour from such an example is to understand what kind of history the example is building. Agreed. And that's precisely why I wanted a real repository manifesting the given example:

Re: questions / suggestions about history simplification

2013-12-19 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Adam Spiers wrote: Hmm, another related option would be to add a new test case which tests that git log behaves in the way the man page says it does, in this case. Yes, please! If you have a rough patch in that direction, that would be welcome. Thanks, Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this

Re: questions / suggestions about history simplification

2013-12-19 Thread Junio C Hamano
Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org writes: 2. What difference does --dense ever make? It is set by default, and --sparse is its opposite option, i.e. it turns revs-dense off. When revs-dense is turned off, the usual treesame logic does not kick in to rewrite parents in a single strand of pearls

Re: questions / suggestions about history simplification

2013-12-19 Thread Adam Spiers
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:10:44AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Adam Spiers wrote: Hmm, another related option would be to add a new test case which tests that git log behaves in the way the man page says it does, in this case. Yes, please! If you have a rough patch in that

Re: questions / suggestions about history simplification

2013-12-19 Thread Junio C Hamano
Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org writes: Ah OK, that makes sense now, but not the most intuitive choice of name IMHO. I would have gone for something like --all-commits, but I guess it's way too late to change now. Besides, it is not --all-commits, is it? We do cull irrelevant side branches

Re: questions / suggestions about history simplification

2013-12-19 Thread Adam Spiers
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:39:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org writes: Ah OK, that makes sense now, but not the most intuitive choice of name IMHO. I would have gone for something like --all-commits, but I guess it's way too late to change now.

Re: questions / suggestions about history simplification

2013-12-19 Thread Adam Spiers
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:37:53PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org writes: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:36:45PM +, Adam Spiers wrote: I wanted to be able to experiment with the TREESAME example given in the git-log(1) man page, so I built this script which

Re: questions / suggestions about history simplification

2013-12-19 Thread Adam Spiers
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 07:03:33PM +, Adam Spiers wrote: I still don't understand a few things about history simplification: 1. The --full-history without parent rewriting correctly asserts that commit Q will be shown. But AFAICS this contradicts the documented behaviour Commits