Re: [BUG] Highly inconsistent diff UI

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 25, 2013, 05:59 UTC
Message-ID: <7vppxj6thv.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0ntZKaEzA0Jupj6poOMydqUumEGVVJ-uhBE12sPJ0ntjw@mail.gmail.com>

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> Ofcourse, I now see that this is probably useless, and .. fits my bill.
>
> Would you find it potentially useful?

I dunno. The description you gave was insufficient for me to answer that question.

The part of your message that outlines the scenario you thought A~B might help you was read by me like the following.

    >  pu is based on master~10.  rebase.autostash is based on
    >  master~5 and master~3 merges in pu.

    So which one is 'pu' based on?  master~10, or master~3?  You cannot
    have both.

    >  I merge pu into rebase.autostash while working.

    So from pu the top two commit on 'master' are missing, but your
    branch was forked way before that from 'master', so these two do not
    concern you.

    >  Now, master..rebase.autostash will exclude commits reachable
    >  from master (and therefore pu),

    Whoa. Earlier you said 'pu' is based on master~10, but changed your
    mind to say master~3 is in 'pu', and now you mean the tip of
    'master' is also in 'pu'?  What is going on?

Can you draw a picture to illustrate the topology you are trying to describe, like I did in a few message upthread? E.g.

        ---o---*---a---a---a---a---A (master)
                \       \
                 b---Y---X---B (topic)
                    /

shows a topic B that forked from master and merged from irrelevant branch at Y and merged from master at X [*1*].

In the above sample topology, even if you pulled irrelevant (for the purpose of completing your topic) commits at X from 'master', neither "log A..B" or "log $(merge-base A B)..B" (aka "log A~B") would exclude any of your commit that is not yet in the 'master', so I do not think there is anything you gain by using A~B over A..B.

If you pulled something unrelated to your topic that is not in 'master', both "log A..B" and "log A~B" would show these unrelated changes, so again I do not see how A~B would help you over A..B, either.

Perhaps in a particular topology you have in mind, it might make a difference, but I cannot read what that topology is from your description.

[Footnote]

*1* I do not think this particular topology is what you have in
    mind. It is meant to demonstrate one way to illustrate the
    history to help other people understand the example you are
    trying to give.