On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:49:57AM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > >> I'm trying to send round an incremental changelog for my project which >> contains just my changes without changes that have been made upstream. >> The history look something like this. >> >> ---o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o-- upstream >> \ \ \ >> \-m--A--m--B--m--C--D-- topic >> >> What I want is a changelog with just B, C and D in it (i.e. no merge >> commits and no commits already in upstream). I know if I wanted A,B,C >> and D I could just do 'git log --no-merges upstream..topic'. If I do >> 'git log --no-merges B..topic' I get the merged commits from upstream. >> In set-speak what I think want is the union of upstream..topic and >> B..topic. > > I'm not clear on what makes "B" more special than "A" in the graph > above. But assuming you know A, don't you just want: What makes A special in this case is that commits up to and including A have been reviewed, regression tested etc. My use-case is really about telling people what has been worked on since the last time the code was reviewed. > > git log --no-merges topic ^upstream ^A > > ? That is, "everything in topic, but not in upstream, nor in the parent > of A". Or if you know A and not B, you can use "^B^!" (which means "do > not include commits that are in any parent of B"). Brilliant, that's exactly what I wanted. Thanks. > > -Peff > -- 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