Re: [PATCH] Add --only-merges flag to display only merge commits.

From: Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org>
Date: Apr 9, 2008, 20:38 UTC
Message-ID: <20080409203846.GH11574@genesis.frugalware.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v3apu6bes.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 01:06:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> writes:
> 
> > This is the opposite of git-rev-list --no-merges: It will hide commits
> > with single or no parent.
> >
> > It is useful if a maintainer has a lot of commits between tags and
> > usually each feature is developed in its own topic branch.
> 
> For that particular use case, I'd suggest --first-parent.  It is not just
> about filtering the output but more importantly also affects the way the
> traversal is done (it does not descend into side branches).  It simply is
> more suited for the job you described.

Hm I was not exactly correct. Trivial fixes are pushed to master directly, so just --first-parent won't solve my problem.

> It is very much unclear if the --only-merges is a very common thing for
> people to want to do, and it is very clear what --only-merges does is a
> very narrow single purpose filtering.

OK, that's something others should decide. :-) I find it useful but maybe it's not commonly useful.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Contrast that to existing --no-merges or --grep.  The former is a very
> narrow single purpose filtering but it is clearly something everybody
> would want to have.  The latter also satisfies a common desire, and it is
> an easy way to query with a customized filtering, e.g. you can use it like
> so: 'log --grep="Merge " v1.5.4..v1.5.5'.

Oh, I forgot about --grep. Though I still think --only-merges would be a solution and --grep="Merge " is just a workaround, in practice it works fine, so thanks for the hint. :-)