From: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 02:43:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable tree (directory) history display
Message-ID: <20060701024309.63001.qmail@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vy7vef52m.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

--- Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > This patch allows history display of whole trees/directories a la
> > "git-rev-list HEAD -- <dir or file>".  I find this useful especially
> > when a project lives in its own subdirectory, as opposed to being all
> > of the GIT repository (i.e. when a sub-project is merged into a
> > super-project).
> 
> Both patches from you were seriously damaged.  Check your MUA
> before sending further patches, please.

Yes, I'll take a look.

> 
> They were trivial for me to apply by hand, so no need to resend
> them.  I like the effect of this one I am replying to very much.

Junio, Linus,

I took a comparative look with and without "--full-history",
and FWIW, enabling full history just clobbers the output with a lot
of unnecessary information.  I.e. it shows merges which do not have
direct consequence or change to the files in the path spec specified
after the "--".

I.e. no new, relevant information is being shown when "--full-history"
is enabled.  In fact the default git-rev-list case, simplify_history=1,
still shows a merge here and there which doesn't have any direct
changes into what is being sought, but the difference is
about 48% less clobber.

Can you consider the default case to be simplify_history=1,
which is currently the default behaviour of git-rev-list.

If not, is it possible to make this a configurable flag
in gitweb, so that people can decide how much non-related
history to show?  I.e. I'd opt for the default case,
no full-history.

FWIW, I think that the original intention (had there been a choice)
would've been to show only most relevant history, i.e. changes
directly related to paths and files after the "--".

Thanks,
  Luben