Re: [PATCH gitk 0/4] gitk support for git log -L
- From
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
- Date
- Aug 18, 2013, 11:54 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20130818115456.GA6772@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <87siyu98cq.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net>
Hi Thomas,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 03:17:41PM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de> writes: > > > Am 29.07.2013 21:37, schrieb Thomas Rast: > >> Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> writes: > >> > >>> Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> writes: > >>> > >>>> Now that git log -L has hit master, I figure it's time to discuss the > >>>> corresponding change to gitk. > >>> > >>> Paul, any news on this? Any chance we can get it into the next release, > >>> since that will also be the first release to ship with 'git log -L'? > >> > >> Jens pointed out privately that the handling of unstuck -L options is > >> unfortunate, to put it mildly. I'll send a reroll. > > > > But as soon as that is fixed I'd really like to see this applied, as > > I think gitk is the perfect tool to show history information.
One thing I worry about is having gitk storing in memory not just the history graph but also all the diffs (assuming I have understood correctly what you're doing). Gitk's memory consumption is already pretty large. However, I can't see an alternative at this point.
> Unfortunately it's turning out to be harder than I hoped. gitk runs the > arguments through git-rev-parse, which only knows that -n gets an > unstuck argument. Consequently, gitk accepts an unstuck -n but only > stuck forms of -S and -G.
Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean by "stuck" vs. "unstuck"?
Thanks, Paul.