On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 03:40:43PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> That makes sense to me. We omit "c" because it doesn't touch "b.t", and
> obviously include "b", which does. We _do_ include the boundary commit,
> even though it doesn't touch the path, which makes sense to me. It
> remains a boundary whether it touched the path or not, and without it,
> we get no boundary at all.
>
> But now if I limit to "a.t", I get no output at all:
>
> $ git log --format='%m %s' --boundary a..c -- a.t
>
> whereas I would have expected "- a" to show the boundary.
>
> Is this a bug, or are my expectations wrong?
So I suppose it depends how you define "boundary" commits. In
get_revision_internal(), I see this comment:
/*
* boundary commits are the commits that are parents of the
* ones we got from get_revision_1() but they themselves are
* not returned from get_revision_1(). Before returning
* 'c', we need to mark its parents that they could be boundaries.
*/
By that definition, obviously if we do not have any commits to show,
then we have no boundary commits. I don't think this definition is
anywhere in the user-facing documentation, though.
It still seems weird to me, and I wonder if we should show all
UNINTERESTING commits as boundaries in the case that we haven't produced
any positive commits at all. But perhaps there is a case where that
would not be desirable.
-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