Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Please don't set Mail-Followup-To; it's disliked on this list. Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know why, since it has no annoyance for those who are replying to my emails. > > > Am 1/26/2011 9:36, schrieb Francis Moreau: >> I tried to reproduce something similar but with a far more simple repo: >> >> >> <v2.6.28> 1.f o >> | >> 1.e o (merge) >> | \ >> 1.d o o 2.c (merge) >> | | \ >> 1.c o o o 3.a "Remove blacklist_iommu()" >> | | / >> | o 2.a >> | / >> 1.b o >> | >> <v2.6.27> 1.a o "Introduce blacklist_iommu()" >> | >> o Init >> >> Basically this repo 3 branches: master, 2, 3. Master branch introduces >> the "blacklist_iommu()" function with commit 1.a, and branch "3" removes >> it at commit 3.a. >> ... >> So in this case there's no need to pass the '-m' flag and git-log(1), by >> default walks through all the commits: > > To reproduce the real history, you have to modify your example in three ways: > > 1. 2.a must be forked off of Init, not 1.b; i.e., this commit does not > contain "blacklist_iommu". > > 2. Drop the side branch that removes the word. (Drop at least the commit.) > > 3. The merge 1.e (which resembles d847059) must be modified such that it > takes the contents of 2.c rather than 1.d. > > IOW, "blacklist_iommu" is not removed explicitly by a commit, but rather > by a merge of one branch that has it and another one that doesn't have it. > > Look closely at d847059: The commit message hints at a conflict in > intel_iommu.c, But how did you find out d847059 ? Did you use René's method ? Thanks -- Francis -- 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