Re: Output from "git blame A..B -- path" for the bottom commit is misleading
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- May 9, 2014, 00:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20140509001145.GA8734@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <874n10ot2m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:32:01PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> ( 103) > >> 7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay 2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 104) test_expect_... > >> ( 105) test... > >> 7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay 2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 106) git ... > >> ( 107) test... > >> > >> which does away with the misleading information altogether. > >> > >> I myself is leaning towards the latter between the two, and not > >> overriding "-b" but introducing another "cleanse the output of > >> useless bottom information even more" option. > > > > Though I rarely use boundary commits, this one makes the most sense to > > me (when I do use them, I just mentally assume that the information in > > the boundary line is useless; this is just making that more apparent). > > It is unclear to me what "this one makes the most sense to me" is > referring to, in particular whether it encompasses the "and not > overriding" part of the paragraph.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that the output format shown there makes the most sense of the ones shown.
I'd actually be inclined to say the opposite of what Junio is saying there: that "-b" should blank the author field as well as the commit sha1. I'd even go so far as to say that "-b" should probably be the default when boundary commits are in use. I cannot think of a time when I have found the boundary information useful, and the IMHO the output above is less confusing than what we produce now. But I admit I haven't thought very hard on it.
-Peff