Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics)

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Mar 25, 2007, 22:20 UTC
Message-ID: <7v648p2cef.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0703251156530.4045@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> * jc/fpl (Tue Mar 13 01:57:22 2007 -0700) 1 commit
>>  + git-log --first-parent: show only the first parent log
>> 
>> This makes viewing topic-heavy style of project history pleasant, at 
>> least in my opinion.  With a bit of cheering up, I'd merge it to 
>> 'master', as it has been cooking in 'next' without causing problems, and 
>> is of low-impact kind.  But it can wait until 1.5.1 is done.
>
> *lol* I just tried it on 'next'...
>
> But I agree that it is ready to be merged, and that it is useful.

Hmph. I am having hard time to decide what to make out of that "*lol*". That branch is exactly where this is useful, as it is a pure integration branch that never gets its own commits (there is one exception "Revert" that is directly on it, but that is an exception. And making an exception stand out is also a good thing). I do not see there is anything to laugh out loudly about.

On the other hand, running "git log -F master" gives a mixed picture, as non-merge commits on 'master' are supposed to be obvious patches that do not need cooking period in 'next', but without the "pee in the snow merges for fast-forwarding case" we do not use, commits on a topic that was born and cooked fully while 'master' was quiescent would also appear on the output, making it a less useful to tell which ones are "obviously correct" ones and which ones were cooked in their own topics.