Junio C Hamano wrote: > So one potential action item that came out from this discussion > for me is to either modify --pretty=raw (or add --pretty=rawish) > that gives the rewritten parents instead of real parents? With > that, you can drop the code to simplify ancestry by hand in your > loop, and also you do not have to do the grafts inforamation > yourself either? > > If that is the case I'd be very happy. > > The only thing left for us to decide is if reporting the true > parenthood like the current --pretty=raw makes sense (if so we > need to keep it and introduce --pretty=rawfish). > > The only in-tree user of --pretty=raw seems to be git-svn but it > only looks at path-unlimited log/rev-list from one given commit, > so the only difference between dumping what is recorded in the > commit object and listing what parents we _think_ the commit has > is what we read from grafts. I think we are safe to just "fix" > the behaviour of --pretty=raw > > Comments? The name --pretty=raw suggest output of info directly from commit object, but perhaps that just me (--pretty=rawish or ==pretty=headers). -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git - 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