Re: identical hashes on two branches, but holes in git log

From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: May 21, 2015, 19:58 UTC
Message-ID: <B2DD947EDB314A2C878567932ECB974E@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <20150521071518.GA8675@frolo.macqel>

From: "Philippe De Muyter" <phdm@macq.eu>
To: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: <git@vger.kernel.org>; "Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>; "John Keeping" 
<john@keeping.me.uk>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: identical hashes on two branches, but holes in git log

Show 44 quoted lines

> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 03:12:31PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Philippe De Muyter <phdm@macq.eu> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 09:01:10AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> >> Philippe De Muyter <phdm@macq.eu> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Trying to understand, I have eventually done "git log" on my 
>> >> > branch and
>> >> > on v3.15 with the following commands :
>> >> >
>> >> > git log v3.15 --full-history --decorate=short | grep '^commit' > 
>> >> > /tmp/3.15.commits
>> >> > git log --full-history --decorate=short | grep '^commit' > 
>> >> > /tmp/mybranch.commits
>> >>
>> >> Either
>> >>
>> >>     git log --oneline v3.15..HEAD ;# show what I have not in 
>> >> theirs
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >>     gitk v3.15...HEAD ;# show our differences graphically
>> >
>> > This shows the commits in my branch starting from the most recent 
>> > common point,
>> > thus my commits, but I see differences in the files not explained 
>> > by my commits,
>> > but by the fact that many older commits (between v3.13 and v3.14) 
>> > are missing on
>> > my branch, but still in both branches I have a commit called v3.14 
>> > with the
>> > same hash.  Is that normal ?
>>
>> Sorry, cannot parse.  Neither of the above would show files, so just
>> about the place where you start talking about "I see differences in
>> the files", you lost me.
>
> Look at the other part of the thread, with the discussion with Jeff 
> and John
>
> The light has come, and what I understand is:
>
> don't trust the default (ordering) mode of 'git log' :(

Surely the question now should be "What should the man page say that would have explained the default ordering mode in an understandable way, rather than the current misunderstanding?".

What 'ordering' were you 'trusting' (presuming) anyway? The current default mode doesn't actually say anything about the order anyway (as you've discovered).

>
> I surmise this happens only when 'git merge' has been used.
>

-- Philip