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,
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo