On So, 2011-06-26 at 22:25 +0200, Miklos Vajna wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Great, --graph indeed lists two merge commits, and if I check the tree > objects manually, I can see which one introduced the file. But I still > don't really understand --name-status why don't show the addition of > those files, given that I hoped this counts as an "evil merge". As I understand it, --name-status doesn't play any role in choosing the commits that are interesting for the "git log <path>" command. To speak in the terminology used in the history simplification section of "man git": What you want is to show all commits that are NOT TREESAME to _at least_ one parent, whereas git gives you only commits that are NOT TREESAME to ANY parent. >From my current understanding of history simplification, I don't see any way to directly achieve this. The default mode does not include merge commits if at least one parent is TREESAME. The --full-history option only changes which parents are followed, but doesn't change whether a merge is included or not. Parent rewriting unconditionally includes all merges, even the ones that are TREESAME wrt all parents. So do i conclude correctly, that this is a missing feature in git? Is there something I have overlooked? Regards, Chris -- 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