On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 22:30, Eugene Sajine <euguess@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > One of my friends said that git is not working for their development > model... C++ development with static linking across the board, where > they need to see exactly which version of the file has got to the > executable. Roughly, they are using CVS' keywords and revision numbers > and a script wich matches them between two versions of the > executables. As soon as your friend understand, that a commit describes the complete state of the repository on the moment of commit, he/she will notice that the commit allows to find each what content each file in the product had at the moment of compilation and linking (assuming they weren't compiling uncommitted tree, which RCS/CVS/SVN/Perforce mindset tends to encourage). > I've got curious if Git can support it and how it can be done with > minimal changes to workflow. Depends on workflow, I afraid. And I personally wouldn't bother. >>> # little script or regexp here (don’t have it) >>> >>> Does it make sense? >> >> Not much. You'll always get a long list of commits which didn't >> change the damned blob. And you have absolutely no way >> to find out exactly which of the commits have produced >> the blob you're looking at (because you decided to do away >> with the information). > > How is that? It seams to me that git log <path> will show only commits > where <path> was changed/committed? Considering the fact that I've got > the initial path from the blob, i should get the exact commit history > (or last commit in my example) for the file(s) (Files if renaming > occurred without content change). The blob is present in each commit since it was introduced. Except when your project contains only that one blob, isn't the state of the other parts of an interest? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html