On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:05:52AM -0700, Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> git log new@{30.years.ago}..new
>> (You'll get a warning that 'new' hasn't existed for 30 years but it
>> doesn't hurt anything)
>
> That's the same as "git log new", if I'm not mistaken.
>
> What Stefan wants to do is to let git log show the commits which are
> only in the "new" branch, but I don't think there is an out-of-the-box
> solution for that.
Not out-of-the-box but this does exactly what you said, print all
commits only reachable from the "new" branch:
git log new --not $(git for-each-ref --format='%(refname)'
'refs/heads/*' | grep -v refs/heads/new)
For the original question, I think what makes most sense in this case
is asking for the commits since the upstream branch. Some time ago
there was a discussion about a syntax for the tracking branch and
there was even a patch:
Subject: [PATCH v2] Introduce <branch>@{upstream} as shortcut to the
tracked branch
Date: 2009-09-10 15:25:57 GMT
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3calpine.DEB.1.00.0909101724520.8306%40pacific.mpi%2dcbg.de%3e
but it's not in git.git.
HTH,
Santi
--
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