Re: Inconsistencies with git log

> Peter Baumann <waste.manager@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > Hm. I tried to run your 'git log' and 'git log .' example and a diff
> > revealed that the output of those two isn't the same, contrary to what I
> > thought.
> >
> > In the 'git-log .' case, there should be done a history simplification,
> > but then only commits which don't change anything are pruned and AFAIR
> > 'git commit' doesn't allow this. Using core git, one could create commits
> > with the same tree as their parent, but I don't think that all the commits
> > which get removed in the '.' case where produced that way. There has to be
> > another case I can't figure out.
> 
> The answer is "merges".
> 
> If a merge does not change the tree from one of the ancestors,
> the side branches are pruned out, to give you _one_ explanation
> of how you got there.  And by pruning such side branches, you
> get the simpler explanation.
> 
> Linus gave the example of "log origin/pu ."; there is at least
> one merge I am aware of that did not change any path (it is the
> one that merges "jc/maint-format-patch-encoding" topic).  With
> the path limiter, the merge commit and the two commits that
> leads to it on the side branch are hidden away.