3 messages, 2 authors, 2016-06-15 · open the first message on its own page
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:42:22
Petr Baudis [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
No, it's the expected output just because you expected merges to always show up. Merges get ignored if any of the parents have the same content already.Eek. Can I avoid that? What was the reason for choosing this behavior?
Perhaps rev-list --sparse?
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:42:22
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Petr Baudis [off-list ref] writes:quoted
quoted
No, it's the expected output just because you expected merges to always show up. Merges get ignored if any of the parents have the same content already.Eek. Can I avoid that? What was the reason for choosing this behavior?Perhaps rev-list --sparse?
No. "--sparse" still removes the uninteresting parents of merges. It just doesn't then make the linear history any denser. Linus
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:42:22
Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:
No. "--sparse" still removes the uninteresting parents of merges. It just doesn't then make the linear history any denser.
Hmph, you are right. add_parents_to_list() calls prune_fn unconditionally while running limit_list(). Disabling that with yet another flag might be a possibility but I suspect then it would not be much different from running rev-list without path limiter and having the caller process the result.