Renà Scharfe <rene.scharfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Perhaps we should check my underlying assumption first: is it reasonable > to expect a git log command to show the same commits with and without a > path spec that covers all changed files? The simplest case would be "git log ." vs "git log" from the root level of the repository, right? Traditionally, the former is "please show _one_ simplest history that can explain how the current commit came to be" (i.e. with merge simplification), while the latter is "please list everything that is behind the current commit" (i.e. without), I think. It feels unintuitive, but my understanding of the rationale behind the design is that, the expectation Linus had when he first did the pathspec limited traversal was that most of the time "git log $path" is used to get an explanation. It follows that having to say "git log --simplify $path" would have been a nuisance, so "with pathspec, we simplify" was thought to be a reasonable default. -- 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