I think it should be like below
[pelou@hzling29 try_des]$ git log --raw -1 --no-walk=unsorted 57cf56b8c1af9115a7f8e1c1c8f07e4d657e8b15^ 57cf56b8c1af9115a7f8e1c1c8f07e4d657e8b15
commit 57cf56b8c1af9115a7f8e1c1c8f07e4d657e8b15
Author: pelou <pengfei.lou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Dec 3 17:00:47 2019 +0800
3
:100644 100644 9a7456b... 8148ef7... M lpf
Br, Hercules
-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Turner <bturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2019年12月3日 17:22
To: Lou, Pengfei (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <pengfei.lou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: one bug on git
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.
