Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Sebastian Schuberth >> <sschuberth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Felipe Contreras >>> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>>> 1) Passing just "HEAD" as a committish like in "git contacts HEAD" >>>>> does not output anything for me, but using the SHA1 for HEAD does >>>>> neither. My HEAD commit does not add any files, but only modifies >>>>> previously existing files, so I would have expected some output. In >>>>> case it turns out to be correct to have no output in my case, could we >>>>> probably say that in some message to the user? >>>> >>>> It should be HEAD^, or -1, like with 'git format-patch'. >>> >>> Oh, that's pretty much unexpected. Wouldn't it be much more natural if >>> I had to specify the commit(s) that introduce(s) the changes that I >>> want others to look at? >> >> Yeah, that's exactly what you are doing. How do you tell 'git log' to >> show you certain changes? > > I'm not sure what you're trying to point me at. It's clear that from > an implementation view you need to blame HEAD^ if you need to know > which poeple should review your changes in HEAD. I agree that the situation when providing only HEAD is really disappointing... > But IMHO that is an implementation detail that should be hidden from > the user. ... but it's not just an implementation detail: git-contacts takes a range of commits, so you can ask for people to Cc for a whole patch series for example. If I understand correctly, "git contact $ONE_COMMIT" does "git contact $ONE_COMMIT..HEAD" implicitly, and this is weird when $ONE_COMMIT is HEAD. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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