From: Bo Yang <struggleyb.nku@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:47:44 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/13] parse the -L options
Message-ID: <AANLkTil8C7h8T4sVfvj2IkYIUHmGLOIvKX82Lo_Zlyrw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinXDRV_Ikd-hoGoWPZmn1Tp0NYHoumaqthydsuw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Bo Yang <struggleyb.nku@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes:
>>> > I think that would just needlessly break the analogy to git-blame.[0]
>>> > With the current code,
>>> >
>>> >   git blame -L 2,3 <path>
>>> >   git log -L 2,3 <path>
>>> >
>>> > work the same.
>>>
>>> I like the general direction, but I am not sure how far we want to take
>>> that analogue with blame, though.
>>>
>>> For example, Bo's "log -L" thing also works on more than one path, no?  I
>>> suspect it might be be reasonable to teach "blame" to annotate more than
>>> one path (with ranges) the same way.  There is no technical limitation in
>>> the underlying scoreboard mechanism to prevent it from happening.
>>>
>>> Very similar to "blame" but quite differently from any normal "log"
>>> operation, "log -L" allows only one positive commit (starting point).
>>
>> AFAICT this is not a conceptual requirement, only one of the current
>> implementation/option parsing.  [Bo, how hard would it be to remove
>> this requirement?]
>>
>> 'git log --follow', if it were ever unbroken, would have much the same
>> problem that while technically allowing more than one starting point,
>> using that is only possible if the starting filename happens to agree
>> on all of them.
>
> I think Junio here did not ask for 'git log -L' to support multiple
> starting commits. [1]

Forget [1]: gmane.comp.version-control.git:142900

-- 
Regards!
Bo
----------------------------
My blog: http://blog.morebits.org
Why Git: http://www.whygitisbetterthanx.com/