# Getting a list of commits between 2 points without upstream changes 4 messages from 2011-07-17 to 2011-07-18. Participants: Chris Packham, Jeff King. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/27836 ## Chris Packham, 2011-07-17 23:49 Subject: Getting a list of commits between 2 points without upstream changes Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAFOYHZC5hQ9JV8a5d20AaPR_eYFDViama%2B4148MPumvvJ-n6wQ%40mail.gmail.com ``` Hi List, I'm trying to send round an incremental changelog for my project which contains just my changes without changes that have been made upstream. The history look something like this. ---o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o-- upstream \ \ \ \-m--A--m--B--m--C--D-- topic What I want is a changelog with just B, C and D in it (i.e. no merge commits and no commits already in upstream). I know if I wanted A,B,C and D I could just do 'git log --no-merges upstream..topic'. If I do 'git log --no-merges B..topic' I get the merged commits from upstream. In set-speak what I think want is the union of upstream..topic and B..topic. Is there any existing way to achieve this? I'm happy to hack something up using git rev-list if necessary. Thanks, Chris ``` ## Jeff King, 2011-07-18 00:17 Subject: Re: Getting a list of commits between 2 points without upstream changes Message-ID: <20110718001749.GA706@sigill.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20110718001749.GA706%40sigill.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:49:57AM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > I'm trying to send round an incremental changelog for my project which > contains just my changes without changes that have been made upstream. > The history look something like this. > > ---o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o-- upstream > \ \ \ > \-m--A--m--B--m--C--D-- topic > > What I want is a changelog with just B, C and D in it (i.e. no merge > commits and no commits already in upstream). I know if I wanted A,B,C > and D I could just do 'git log --no-merges upstream..topic'. If I do > 'git log --no-merges B..topic' I get the merged commits from upstream. > In set-speak what I think want is the union of upstream..topic and > B..topic. I'm not clear on what makes "B" more special than "A" in the graph above. But assuming you know A, don't you just want: git log --no-merges topic ^upstream ^A ? That is, "everything in topic, but not in upstream, nor in the parent of A". Or if you know A and not B, you can use "^B^!" (which means "do not include commits that are in any parent of B"). -Peff ``` ## Chris Packham, 2011-07-18 00:33 Subject: Re: Getting a list of commits between 2 points without upstream changes Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAFOYHZDUyQpVc5m4w9jcDsmed%2BUR8a_zxzR0mBAjPf7_A80MQg%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20110718001749.GA706@sigill.intra.peff.net> ``` On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:49:57AM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > >> I'm trying to send round an incremental changelog for my project which >> contains just my changes without changes that have been made upstream. >> The history look something like this. >> >> ---o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o-- upstream >>     \          \        \ >>      \-m--A--m--B--m--C--D-- topic >> >> What I want is a changelog with just B, C and D in it (i.e. no merge >> commits and no commits already in upstream). I know if I wanted A,B,C >> and D I could just do 'git log --no-merges upstream..topic'. If I do >> 'git log --no-merges B..topic' I get the merged commits from upstream. >> In set-speak what I think want is the union of upstream..topic and >> B..topic. > > I'm not clear on what makes "B" more special than "A" in the graph > above. But assuming you know A, don't you just want: What makes A special in this case is that commits up to and including A have been reviewed, regression tested etc. My use-case is really about telling people what has been worked on since the last time the code was reviewed. > >  git log --no-merges topic ^upstream ^A > > ? That is, "everything in topic, but not in upstream, nor in the parent > of A". Or if you know A and not B, you can use "^B^!" (which means "do > not include commits that are in any parent of B"). Brilliant, that's exactly what I wanted. Thanks. > > -Peff > ``` ## Jeff King, 2011-07-18 01:28 Subject: Re: Getting a list of commits between 2 points without upstream changes Message-ID: <20110718012844.GA2112@sigill.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20110718012844.GA2112%40sigill.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:33:27PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > > I'm not clear on what makes "B" more special than "A" in the graph > > above. But assuming you know A, don't you just want: > > What makes A special in this case is that commits up to and including > A have been reviewed, regression tested etc. My use-case is really > about telling people what has been worked on since the last time the > code was reviewed. OK, that makes sense. > >  git log --no-merges topic ^upstream ^A > > > > ? That is, "everything in topic, but not in upstream, nor in the parent > > of A". Or if you know A and not B, you can use "^B^!" (which means "do > > not include commits that are in any parent of B"). > > Brilliant, that's exactly what I wanted. Thanks. Oops, I mis-stated it above. It would be "everything in topic, but not in upstream, nor in A". Which I think is what you actually want (I had originally written it as "^B^!", but forgot to change the text when I switched it to the more-readable "^A"). -Peff ```