RE: Show containing branches in log?
- From
Jason Pyeron <jpyeron@pdinc.us>
- Date
- Jul 2, 2014, 16:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <6C120F968C534117BC278DD93D1F84A5@black>
- In-Reply-To
- <20140702163451.GB14404@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Show 31 quoted lines
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff King
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 12:35
>
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:50:57AM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
>
> > I know that with the `git branch` command I can determine which
> > branches contain a commit. Is there a way to represent this
> > graphically with `git log`? Sometimes I just have a commit,
> and I need
> > to find out what branch contains that commit. The reason why `git
> > branch --contains` doesn't solve this problem for me is
> that it names
> > almost all branches because of merge commits. Too much ancestry has
> > been built since this commit, so there is no way to find
> the "closest"
> > branch that contains that commit.
> >
> > Is there a way to graphically see what is the "nearest" named ref to
> > the specified commit in the logs?
>
> Have you tried "git describe --contains --all <commit>"?
>
> To some degree, I fear your question isn't something git can
> answer. If
> the branch containing the commit has been merged into other branches,
> then they all "contain" the commit. There is not really any reason to
> prefer one over the other ("describe --contains" will try to find the
> "closest" branch, but that is based on heuristics and is not
> necessarily
> well-defined).Another way I answer this question is git log --oneline --graph --all and then search for the commit and follow the lines.
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us - - Principal Consultant 10 West 24th Street #100 - - +1 (443) 269-1555 x333 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 - - - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This message is copyright PD Inc, subject to license 20080407P00.