From: Bo Yang <struggleyb.nku@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:46:04 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/13] parse the -L options
Message-ID: <AANLkTinXDRV_Ikd-hoGoWPZmn1Tp0NYHoumaqthydsuw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201007200951.56218.trast@student.ethz.ch>

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]
Considering the arguments you give below, I am in support of put it in
'git log -L' as what we do, now.

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