Re: Output from "git blame A..B -- path" for the bottom commit is misleading
flat view
From: John Keeping <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 23:01:03
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I am tempted to say "blame that is run without the --porcelain
option is a end-user facing Porcelain, and people should not be
reading its output in their scripts" and change the behaviour of the
"-b" option to instead show something like this instead:
^cc29195 (Unknown 2014-04-18 11:21:43 -0700 103)
7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay 2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 104) test_expect_...
^cc29195 (Unknown 2014-04-18 11:21:43 -0700 105) test...
7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay 2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 106) git ...
^cc29195 (Unknown 2014-04-18 11:21:43 -0700 107) test...
which shows the commit object name, its bottom-ness and the
timestamp, or even
( 103)
7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay 2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 104) test_expect_...
( 105) test...
7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay 2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 106) git ...
( 107) test...
which does away with the misleading information altogether.
I myself is leaning towards the latter between the two, and not
overriding "-b" but introducing another "cleanse the output of
useless bottom information even more" option.
I'd be tempted to leave the SHA-1 to indicate "sometime before" but
delete the author and date (I also think it looks a bit nicer to omit
the opening parenthesis):
^cc29195 103)
7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay 2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 104) test_expect_...
^cc29195 105) test...
7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay 2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 106) git ...
^cc29195 107) test...
On a slight tangent, I tried this in a fairly young repository and got
this (with master at v2.0.0-rc2-4-g1dc51c6):
$ git blame Makefile | head -5
7a3fc144 (John Keeping 2013-12-26 17:37:53 +0000 1) REL_VERSION = v0.2
5c9829f9 (John Keeping 2013-07-29 17:03:26 +0100 2)
5c9829f9 (John Keeping 2013-07-29 17:03:26 +0100 3) # The default target is...
^f7fae99 (John Keeping 2013-03-24 17:14:40 +0000 4) all::
^f7fae99 (John Keeping 2013-03-24 17:14:40 +0000 5)
f7fae99 is the initial commit in the repository, so shouldn't the last
two lines blame to that, not a non-existent ancestor?