Re: Some observations on log -L
- From
Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
- Date
- Apr 20, 2013, 15:24 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87bo99usvo.fsf@hexa.v.cablecom.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CALkWK0k+LYro8jpmfRPmX8Wsj6aEWzyq3DYa6waDMsh5B=X7Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
Show 6 quoted lines
> Ever since 'git log -L' made it to `pu`, I've been playing with it to > see how it can be useful. Here are some of my observations: > > 1. Specifying line ranges by hand are too painful. I would really > love it if it could parse the lines off a patch prepared by > format-patch or something.
True, but I'm not sure that starting from a patch is the right thing. At least in my case, when I have a patch ready, I longer need to investigate anything ;-)
Perhaps a "line-log all the ranges touched by this commit" would be more useful.
You can achieve both with some hack like
eval git log 1640632 $(git show 1640632 | perl -ne '
$h=1 if /^diff /;
$f=$1 if $h and m{\+\+\+ ./(.*)$};
if (/@@ .* \+(\d+)(?:,(\d+))/) {
print " -L$1,+$2:$f"; $h=0;
};
')Note that you need to specify the commit in two places. I think I'll actually make that a script and try it to see if it's worth implementing. Quoting of the -L args is of course an exercise left to the reader ;-)
Show 5 quoted lines
> 2. Specifying regex ranges are really useful to see the history of a > function. But I think it could really benefit from a tool that > actually understands the language (using Clang Tooling). If we were > to build such a tool, git-core could benefit immensely from it: we'd > have smarter merges too, for instance.
Is there any research on this?
I imagine you would use whatever parser you have at hand to process the input into a syntax tree, then run diff over those trees. There should be some research on how to get meaningful diffs of them? And then you somehow have to turn the tree-diff into a human-readable output.
In any case you could start by prototyping such a diff algorithm on a file basis; people could then start using it as an external diff driver.
Show 5 quoted lines
> 3. Often, I want to know the people to contact for a segment of code. > Blame is useless here, because it only considers the most recent > commit, when I want to know the authors of all the commits that helped > shaped that segment of code. So, I think shortlog could really > benefit from a -L. Is this easily doable?
Not really. You're touching on a sore point of the current implementation, which is that it's not properly tied into the log and diff infrastructures. I figured that would block it for too long, so I gave up on trying to do that for the first version.
So it just runs captures the history that log walks, does a separate processing step and handcrafts a diff in its own output machinery, which isn't very nice for many reasons, including that we can't run any other diff- or log-like stuff on top of log -L output.
That precludes many uses, like shortlog you mentioned, or color-words. I think Junio and me hashed out some ideas for how it *should* be tied together in some earlier thread. The gist of it is that there are really three separate things going on here:
* Pathspec-like filtering with proper -M support. This should be unified with --follow. That's actually the next thing I want to try, because it should give a properly implemented --follow along the way.
* A pass of commit filtering based on intersecting the ranges we're interested in with the diffs of commits, and mapping them "across". This should be hooked as a cleanly separated step into the log machinery.
* Diff output filtering based on the ranges that we found. This should be done as a filter somewhere in the diff machinery, preferably before word-diff.
(The first step is actually a performance optimization, but it would not be a practical algorithm without it.)
Thanks for the input. Let me know if you manage to break it somehow :-)
And for a bit of shameless pluggery (you probably saw it on IRC already, but mainly for other curious readers):
git://github.com/trast/git.git tr/gitk-line-log
has a version of gitk that supports -L. I hacked it up yesterday, and while it seems to work, I want to play with it a little until I'm satisfied that I didn't break gitk for other uses.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch