From: Paul Mackerras Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:54:57 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH gitk 0/4] gitk support for git log -L 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: > Jens Lehmann writes: > > > Am 29.07.2013 21:37, schrieb Thomas Rast: > >> Thomas Rast writes: > >> > >>> Thomas Rast 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.