Re: [Q] Abbreviated history graph?

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Nov 3, 2008, 19:32 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811031129060.3419@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <200811031439.12111.brian.foster@innova-card.com>

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Brian Foster wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> 
>   A colleague and I recently wanted to examine the
>  history in a broad sense without worrying too much
>  about the individual commits.  What we (think we)
>  wanted is a ‘gitk --all’ history graph showing only
>  “named” historical points;

Ok, this is actually really easy to do with git. We have all the infrastructure in place, and what you're asking for is fundamentally really just an odd form of commit history simplification. Instead of comparing the *contents* of the commits (the trees) to see if they are interesting, you'd only check if there is a decoration (ie a tag or a branch) pointing to the commit.

I'll post a simple series of four commits in a moment. They're all trivial, and the first three are just setting stuff up (in fact, the very first one is a commit I've already posted, and it's technically totally unrelated, but since it touches the same area as one of the other ones, I'm too lazy to try to separate it out).

Patchbombing to commence in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1..

		Linus