Re: [PATCH] git log -p -m: Document, honor --first-parent
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Feb 10, 2010, 03:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vk4ullqop.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20100210021148.GT9553@machine.or.cz>
Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:
Show 5 quoted lines
> * The branch was created long ago, but has merged latest changes of the > top of HEAD in, and now the branch is merged back, that's a "bad > fastforward" since that flips the perspective of main-vs-topic branch. > > I feel that it's important to point out this caveat.
Ah, I thought you were contrasting between ff and non-ff, but instead you were giving caveat about trusting "fast-parent", which I didn't realize.
Yeah, but in general, unless it is the final merge to consolidate the work on the topic to mainline that was delegated by the mainline maintainer to the topic person, merging _from_ mainline _to_ topic should rarely happen. And when it happens, relying on the first-parent ancestry obviously breaks down.
> I really dislike the "first-parent ancestry" wording, I think it muds > down the whole issue.
I am not particularly fond of the wording, either, but any other word you would use, you would need to explain the background information, i.e. how and why the concept embodied by that other word you choose to use relates to the "--first-parent" option.
You can for example say "the changes introduced to the mainline by each commit" (and by "commit" we mean both single parent ones directly made while the mainline was the current branch, and merges made into that branch); you need to define what you mean by "the mainline", and what your assumptions are about the workflow employed (e.g. "rarely if ever merge goes the wrong direction").
Show 8 quoted lines
>> > + else if (opt->first_parent_only) {
>> > + /* Generate merge log entry only for the first
>> > + * parent, showing summary diff of the others
>> > + * we merged _in_. */
>>
>> Style?
>
> What's wrong? /*
* We prefer to write multi-line comments
* like this.
*/