Re: [PATCH] blame: add the ability to ignore commits

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 14, 2019, 17:45 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqfttvw2sv.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190114101956.2b899d0e@brho.roam.corp.google.com>

Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com> writes:

Show 24 quoted lines

> On 2019-01-10 at 14:29 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > For instance, commit X does this:
>> >
>> > -foo(x,y);
>> > +foo(x,y,z);
>> >
>> > Then commit Y comes along to reformat it:
>> >
>> > -foo(x,y,z);
>> > +foo(x, y, z);
>> >
>> > And the history / rev-list for the file looks like:
>> >
>> > ---O---A---X---B---C---D---Y---E---F
>> >
>> > I want to ignore/skip Y and see X in the blame output.    
>> 
>> If you skip Y, the altered history would have "foo(x, y, z)" in E,
>> "foo(x,y,z)" in X, and "foo(x,y)" in A.  If you start blaming from
>> F, you'd get E as the commit that explains the latest state.  If you
>> do not skip Y, you'd get Y.  I am not sure how you'd get X in either
>> case.  
>
> The way to do it is ...

Sorry, I made a too-fuzzy statement. What I meant was, that unless you are ignoring E, I do not know why you "would want to" attribute a line "foo(x, y, z)" that appears in F to X. Starting from X up to D (and to Y in real history, but you are ignoring Y), the line was "foo(x,y,z)", after E, it is "foo(x, y, z)". I didn't mean to ask how you "would show" such a result---as I do not yet understand why you would want such a result to begin with.