# Question about "git log --cherry" 7 messages from 2013-09-26 to 2013-09-27. Participants: Francis Moreau, John Keeping. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/35028 ## Francis Moreau, 2013-09-26 16:35 Subject: Question about "git log --cherry" Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAC9WiBjLqdqSKgLv_M6FPx3a2J-%2BZKAQnk9OGn3h5SfqSpiT3g%40mail.gmail.com ``` Hello, I'm trying to use "git log --cherry ..." in order to display new, kept and removed commits between two branches A and B. So commits which are only in B are considered new and should be marked with '+'. Commits which are in both branches are marked with '=' but only commit in branch B are shown. Eventually commits which are in A but not in B anymore should be marked with '-'. So far I found this solution: $ git log --cherry-mark --right-only A...B $ git log --cherry-pick --left-only A...B but I have to call twice git-log. This can be annoying since depending on A and B, calling git-log can take time. Is there another option that I'm missing which would do the job but with only one call to git-log ? Thanks -- Francis ``` ## John Keeping, 2013-09-26 20:21 Subject: Re: Question about "git log --cherry" Message-ID: <20130926202153.GC27238@serenity.lan> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20130926202153.GC27238%40serenity.lan In-Reply-To: ``` On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > I'm trying to use "git log --cherry ..." in order to display new, kept > and removed commits between two branches A and B. > > So commits which are only in B are considered new and should be marked > with '+'. Commits which are in both branches are marked with '=' but > only commit in branch B are shown. Eventually commits which are in A > but not in B anymore should be marked with '-'. > > So far I found this solution: > > $ git log --cherry-mark --right-only A...B > $ git log --cherry-pick --left-only A...B > > but I have to call twice git-log. This can be annoying since depending > on A and B, calling git-log can take time. > > Is there another option that I'm missing which would do the job but > with only one call to git-log ? Does this do what you want? git log --cherry-mark --left-right A...B | sed -e '/^commit / { y/<>/-+/ }' ``` ## Francis Moreau, 2013-09-27 05:09 Subject: Re: Question about "git log --cherry" Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAC9WiBjykt5qj2sRtTK%3DVHp0B5x%3D%3D%3D7oqVP7VRC6BOdCMTn9yg%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20130926202153.GC27238@serenity.lan> ``` Hi, On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:21 PM, John Keeping wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: >> I'm trying to use "git log --cherry ..." in order to display new, kept >> and removed commits between two branches A and B. >> >> So commits which are only in B are considered new and should be marked >> with '+'. Commits which are in both branches are marked with '=' but >> only commit in branch B are shown. Eventually commits which are in A >> but not in B anymore should be marked with '-'. >> >> So far I found this solution: >> >> $ git log --cherry-mark --right-only A...B >> $ git log --cherry-pick --left-only A...B >> >> but I have to call twice git-log. This can be annoying since depending >> on A and B, calling git-log can take time. >> >> Is there another option that I'm missing which would do the job but >> with only one call to git-log ? > > Does this do what you want? > > git log --cherry-mark --left-right A...B | > sed -e '/^commit / { > y/<>/-+/ > }' Nope because --left-right shows common commits (with '=' mark) that belong to A *and* B, and I'd like to have only the ones in B. Thanks -- Francis ``` ## John Keeping, 2013-09-27 08:11 Subject: Re: Question about "git log --cherry" Message-ID: <20130927081113.GE27238@serenity.lan> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20130927081113.GE27238%40serenity.lan In-Reply-To: ``` On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 07:09:03AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:21 PM, John Keeping wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > >> I'm trying to use "git log --cherry ..." in order to display new, kept > >> and removed commits between two branches A and B. > >> > >> So commits which are only in B are considered new and should be marked > >> with '+'. Commits which are in both branches are marked with '=' but > >> only commit in branch B are shown. Eventually commits which are in A > >> but not in B anymore should be marked with '-'. > >> > >> So far I found this solution: > >> > >> $ git log --cherry-mark --right-only A...B > >> $ git log --cherry-pick --left-only A...B > >> > >> but I have to call twice git-log. This can be annoying since depending > >> on A and B, calling git-log can take time. > >> > >> Is there another option that I'm missing which would do the job but > >> with only one call to git-log ? > > > > Does this do what you want? > > > > git log --cherry-mark --left-right A...B | > > sed -e '/^commit / { > > y/<>/-+/ > > }' > > Nope because --left-right shows common commits (with '=' mark) that > belong to A *and* B, and I'd like to have only the ones in B. I think the only way you can address this is to post-process the result, I don't know any way to remove a left side commit only if it is patch-identical to a right side commit. It should be relatively easy to filter out any '=' commits that are in the output of "git rev-list --left-only A...B". ``` ## Francis Moreau, 2013-09-27 08:28 Subject: Re: Question about "git log --cherry" Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAC9WiBgzWXhoEuD1adwD%2BSwFScSwH%2BJFBLRq%3D26G5k8JxFysEg%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20130927081113.GE27238@serenity.lan> ``` On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM, John Keeping wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 07:09:03AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:21 PM, John Keeping wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: >> >> I'm trying to use "git log --cherry ..." in order to display new, kept >> >> and removed commits between two branches A and B. >> >> >> >> So commits which are only in B are considered new and should be marked >> >> with '+'. Commits which are in both branches are marked with '=' but >> >> only commit in branch B are shown. Eventually commits which are in A >> >> but not in B anymore should be marked with '-'. >> >> >> >> So far I found this solution: >> >> >> >> $ git log --cherry-mark --right-only A...B >> >> $ git log --cherry-pick --left-only A...B >> >> >> >> but I have to call twice git-log. This can be annoying since depending >> >> on A and B, calling git-log can take time. >> >> >> >> Is there another option that I'm missing which would do the job but >> >> with only one call to git-log ? >> > >> > Does this do what you want? >> > >> > git log --cherry-mark --left-right A...B | >> > sed -e '/^commit / { >> > y/<>/-+/ >> > }' >> >> Nope because --left-right shows common commits (with '=' mark) that >> belong to A *and* B, and I'd like to have only the ones in B. > > I think the only way you can address this is to post-process the result, > I don't know any way to remove a left side commit only if it is > patch-identical to a right side commit. > > It should be relatively easy to filter out any '=' commits that are in > the output of "git rev-list --left-only A...B". yes that's what I'm doing but I was wondering if that's possible to do that with only one run of git-log/git-rev-list. Thanks -- Francis ``` ## John Keeping, 2013-09-27 09:14 Subject: Re: Question about "git log --cherry" Message-ID: <20130927091402.GF27238@serenity.lan> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20130927091402.GF27238%40serenity.lan In-Reply-To: ``` On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:28:05AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM, John Keeping wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 07:09:03AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:21 PM, John Keeping wrote: > >> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > >> >> I'm trying to use "git log --cherry ..." in order to display new, kept > >> >> and removed commits between two branches A and B. > >> >> > >> >> So commits which are only in B are considered new and should be marked > >> >> with '+'. Commits which are in both branches are marked with '=' but > >> >> only commit in branch B are shown. Eventually commits which are in A > >> >> but not in B anymore should be marked with '-'. > >> >> > >> >> So far I found this solution: > >> >> > >> >> $ git log --cherry-mark --right-only A...B > >> >> $ git log --cherry-pick --left-only A...B > >> >> > >> >> but I have to call twice git-log. This can be annoying since depending > >> >> on A and B, calling git-log can take time. > >> >> > >> >> Is there another option that I'm missing which would do the job but > >> >> with only one call to git-log ? > >> > > >> > Does this do what you want? > >> > > >> > git log --cherry-mark --left-right A...B | > >> > sed -e '/^commit / { > >> > y/<>/-+/ > >> > }' > >> > >> Nope because --left-right shows common commits (with '=' mark) that > >> belong to A *and* B, and I'd like to have only the ones in B. > > > > I think the only way you can address this is to post-process the result, > > I don't know any way to remove a left side commit only if it is > > patch-identical to a right side commit. > > > > It should be relatively easy to filter out any '=' commits that are in > > the output of "git rev-list --left-only A...B". > > yes that's what I'm doing but I was wondering if that's possible to do > that with only one run of git-log/git-rev-list. I don't think it is. But you only need to use the --cherry-mark option with one of the runs, so the other one should be very quick - the added work of calculating patch IDs slows down "git log" a lot. ``` ## Francis Moreau, 2013-09-27 09:52 Subject: Re: Question about "git log --cherry" Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAC9WiBjponU%3DgKZ26oG7pOhGJk5%3DXxxGzGm9A4Y6qbNEcUw%3DPQ%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20130927091402.GF27238@serenity.lan> ``` On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:14 AM, John Keeping wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:28:05AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM, John Keeping wrote: >> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 07:09:03AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:21 PM, John Keeping wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: >> >> >> I'm trying to use "git log --cherry ..." in order to display new, kept >> >> >> and removed commits between two branches A and B. >> >> >> >> >> >> So commits which are only in B are considered new and should be marked >> >> >> with '+'. Commits which are in both branches are marked with '=' but >> >> >> only commit in branch B are shown. Eventually commits which are in A >> >> >> but not in B anymore should be marked with '-'. >> >> >> >> >> >> So far I found this solution: >> >> >> >> >> >> $ git log --cherry-mark --right-only A...B >> >> >> $ git log --cherry-pick --left-only A...B >> >> >> >> >> >> but I have to call twice git-log. This can be annoying since depending >> >> >> on A and B, calling git-log can take time. >> >> >> >> >> >> Is there another option that I'm missing which would do the job but >> >> >> with only one call to git-log ? >> >> > >> >> > Does this do what you want? >> >> > >> >> > git log --cherry-mark --left-right A...B | >> >> > sed -e '/^commit / { >> >> > y/<>/-+/ >> >> > }' >> >> >> >> Nope because --left-right shows common commits (with '=' mark) that >> >> belong to A *and* B, and I'd like to have only the ones in B. >> > >> > I think the only way you can address this is to post-process the result, >> > I don't know any way to remove a left side commit only if it is >> > patch-identical to a right side commit. >> > >> > It should be relatively easy to filter out any '=' commits that are in >> > the output of "git rev-list --left-only A...B". >> >> yes that's what I'm doing but I was wondering if that's possible to do >> that with only one run of git-log/git-rev-list. > > I don't think it is. But you only need to use the --cherry-mark option > with one of the runs, so the other one should be very quick - the added > work of calculating patch IDs slows down "git log" a lot. That's true, rev-list should be way faster. I think I'll do that. Thanks. -- Francis ```