Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] git log -L, all new and shiny
- From
Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
- Date
- Jun 19, 2012, 10:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87wr33wqzl.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v1ulf94nq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 14 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > >> Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes: >> >>> This would be the first backwards coupling between the revision-walk and >>> the diff generation parts, at least that I know of. >> >> I am not convinced if you need to have any unusual back-coupling to >> begin with, by the way. >> >> If you say "git log -p [--options] -- pathspec", the revision >> machinery does filter commits that do not touch any paths that patch >> pathspec with the TREESAME logic, but that does not necessarily mean >> you will see _all_ the commits that are not TREESAME.
[...]
Show 15 quoted lines
> The revision machinery looks at C and finds its parent B. It runs > object level tree comparison and finds that their trees are > different at path F. It makes a mental note that it may need to > show the log message of C, and asks the diff machinery to run > diff-tree between B and C. The diff machinery finds that it needs > to show something even in the presense of -w option by actual > comparison, and just before showing the very first line of patch > output, it shows the log message of C (due to the earlier "mental > note"). > > Then the revision machinery looks at B. It does the same between B > and A, but this time around, the diff machinery finds that, even > though A and B were _not_ TREESAME at the revision traversal level, > there is nothing to be shown after filtering with the -w option. > Hence no patch is shown and log message for B is not shown, either.
Thanks for the great explanations.
Having spent some time letting this sink in (and being busy doing other things), I think it's actually a good idea. It forces us to go back and change it around so that the diff machinery gets a say _before_ we simplify history. I think this bit will be important for log -L history to make sense, and it's a bug waiting to happen for the -w case.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch