On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:58:35PM +0100, Philip Oakley wrote: > From: "Philippe De Muyter" <phdm@xxxxxxx> > To: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Jeff King" <peff@xxxxxxxx>; "John Keeping" > <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 8:15 AM > Subject: Re: identical hashes on two branches, but holes in git log > > >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 03:12:31PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Philippe De Muyter <phdm@xxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 09:01:10AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> >> Philippe De Muyter <phdm@xxxxxxx> writes: >>> >> >>> >> > Trying to understand, I have eventually done "git log" on my >> > >>> branch and >>> >> > on v3.15 with the following commands : >>> >> > >>> >> > git log v3.15 --full-history --decorate=short | grep '^commit' > >> >>> > /tmp/3.15.commits >>> >> > git log --full-history --decorate=short | grep '^commit' > >> > >>> /tmp/mybranch.commits >>> >> >>> >> Either >>> >> >>> >> git log --oneline v3.15..HEAD ;# show what I have not in >> theirs >>> >> >>> >> or >>> >> >>> >> gitk v3.15...HEAD ;# show our differences graphically >>> > >>> > This shows the commits in my branch starting from the most recent > >>> common point, >>> > thus my commits, but I see differences in the files not explained > by >>> my commits, >>> > but by the fact that many older commits (between v3.13 and v3.14) > are >>> missing on >>> > my branch, but still in both branches I have a commit called v3.14 > >>> with the >>> > same hash. Is that normal ? >>> >>> Sorry, cannot parse. Neither of the above would show files, so just >>> about the place where you start talking about "I see differences in >>> the files", you lost me. >> >> Look at the other part of the thread, with the discussion with Jeff and >> John >> >> The light has come, and what I understand is: >> >> don't trust the default (ordering) mode of 'git log' :( > > > Surely the question now should be "What should the man page say that would > have explained the default ordering mode in an understandable way, rather > than the current misunderstanding?". > > What 'ordering' were you 'trusting' (presuming) anyway? The current default > mode doesn't actually say anything about the order anyway (as you've > discovered). I have used 'git log' on the current 'master' branch of the linux kernel to find at which point in the history a commit - that I know is disruptive for my work and that I know by name because I have seen it passing on a mailing list - had been applied. 'git log -decorate=short' showed it happening between v3.14-rc1 and v3.14-rc2, but after git checkout v3.14 I did not find the effects of the commit in the files that should have been affected by the commit. I expected at least that a commit listed between two tags on the same branch was really applied to that branch between those two tags. Philippe > >> >> I surmise this happens only when 'git merge' has been used. >> > -- > Philip -- 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