On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:28:06AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > (though I suspect it would interact oddly with the "--reverse" option, > > and we would want to either declare them mutually exclusive or figure > > out some sane semantics). > > It is entirely unclear who the first child is, so I tend to think > that they have to be mutually exclusive. That's my thinking, too, but I didn't want to rule out somebody thinking of something clever. > > Your problem is not the presence of "--merges" here, but that you forgot > > the necessary "file" argument. Try "git blame --merges foo.c". > > > > However, this suffers from the same problem as --first-parent, in that > > it is accepted but not respected. Doing so would not be impossible, but > > it is a little more than the two-liner above. > > What the command does when it "respects" it is unclear to me. > In a history like this: > > ---A---B---C > \ \ > E---F---G---H > > and starting at H, pretend everything that happened in, B, C, E and > F since A was done by G? Who gets the blame for what A or H did? In general, I would expect "git blame" with revision arguments to behave as if it was fed the history graph (including parent rewriting). So in this case, I would think it would blame everything before G on G (assuming there are no merges before A), and everything in H would be "not yet committed". That being said, we do not seem to rewrite parents for min/max parent cases even in "git log". I'm not sure why, nor can I seem to provoke it with simplification options. So maybe I am missing something clever. -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