On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 1:08 AM Lou, Pengfei (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <pengfei.lou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi > Thanks for your support > > But your idea was still not working as my wanted , please check the result below > > [pelou@hzling29 try_des]$ git log -1 --raw --no-walk=unsorted 57cf56b8c1af9115a7f8e1c1c8f07e4d657e8b15^ 57cf56b8c1af9115a7f8e1c1c8f07e4d657e8b15 > commit 9d00cc608993840e24f65c7b79ae10f85c2d72ff > Author: pelou <pengfei.lou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Dec 3 17:00:47 2019 +0800 > > 2 > > :100644 100644 d474e1b... 9a7456b... M lpf > [pelou@hzling29 try_des]$ git log --raw --no-walk=unsorted 57cf56b8c1af9115a7f8e1c1c8f07e4d657e8b15^ 57cf56b8c1af9115a7f8e1c1c8f07e4d657e8b15 > commit 9d00cc608993840e24f65c7b79ae10f85c2d72ff > Author: pelou <pengfei.lou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Dec 3 17:00:47 2019 +0800 > > 2 > > :100644 100644 d474e1b... 9a7456b... M lpf > > commit 57cf56b8c1af9115a7f8e1c1c8f07e4d657e8b15 > Author: pelou <pengfei.lou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Dec 3 17:00:47 2019 +0800 > > 3 At this point I'm not sure what you're looking for. Your first command has -1 on it, so it only prints the commit for 57cf56b8c1af9115a7f8e1c1c8f07e4d657e8b15^, which is 9d00cc608993840e24f65c7b79ae10f85c2d72ff. Your second command omits the -1 and so it prints both 57cf56b8c1af9115a7f8e1c1c8f07e4d657e8b15^ (9d00cc608993840e24f65c7b79ae10f85c2d72ff) and 57cf56b8c1af9115a7f8e1c1c8f07e4d657e8b15--in the order you asked for them. What output are you _expecting_ to see? > > So you mean it is not one bug /issue, and adding delay was mandatory for this case? Actually , I found it was still be failure if the delay was set 0.5 seconds. git commit records timestamps with second precision, so a delay of half a second means you can still have 2 commits recorded with identical _to the second_ timestamps. Bryan > > tks > Br, Hercules P.S. Please don't top-post on the list. Respond inline adjacent to the part of the message you're talking about.
