On 14-02-19, 13:23, Elijah Newren wrote: > I think you're getting tripped up by double-dot vs triple-dot with > diff being different than log: > > `git diff D..E` means the same thing as `git diff D E`, i.e. diff the > two commits D and E. Right, so both the branches have at least until rc2 (though pm/linux-next had until rc6), why will the diff D..E show the diff between rc1 and rc2 ? > `git diff D...E` means the same thing as `git diff $(git merge-base D E) E` I get exactly the same result with both .. and ... in this particular case and that's why I wonder if everything is okay or not. The problem in this case is: - PM tree had rc1,2,3,4,5,6 merged earlier into it. - Then I got merged one of my branches which was based of rc1 into pm/linux-next. - And now I am trying to send pull request for another branch which is a merge of the earlier branch (which got merged, based of rc1) and second branch that has more stuff over rc2. - The most recent merge commit common between my branch and pm/linux-next becomes the earlier branch which was based of rc1. - Now I expect ... to return the diff between rc1 and rc2 as it will diff against the most recent merge. - But I expected ... to not include rc1..rc2 diff. > There are some people for whom this state of affairs makes sense. I > am not one of them, and I suspect you aren't either. The arguments > made by those who feel this makes sense seem reasonable to me in the > moment when they present them, but I have never been able to remember > these arguments longer than briefly. It just doesn't stick with me. > The only thing I seem to be able to retain is the following: "git > diff D..E is totally useless and should be an error because (1) it > doesn't do what I expect and (2) for folks that want the behavior > currently gotten with that syntax can instead just use a space instead > of a double dot." Okay but git request-pull uses .. and not ... and that's where I saw the issue in the first place. -- viresh
