On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 10:42 AM Kevin Daudt <me@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 10:27:52AM +1300, Chris Packham wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've just hit a problem where git log doesn't want to tell me about a > > commit that touches a specific file. > > > > I wanted to point someone at a particular change that I knew was made > > to a file so I fired up 'git log FILE' and to my surprise it wasn't > > listed. I wondered if I had remembered wrong so went grepping to > > confirm the change was in the file I thought it was, sure enough it > > was there. > > > > Poking around a bit I found that git log --follow FILE shows the > > intended commit but git log FILE doesn't (it does show other commits > > that touch the file, most of which have tags if that's significant). > > The file hasn't been renamed so I didn't really expect --follow to > > change any behavior. > > > > The version of git I'm using is 2.25.0 from > > http://ppa.launchpad.net/git-core/ppa/ubuntu bionic main. I also tried > > 2.24.1 and 2.23.1 with the same problem. > > > > Any suggestions for tracking this down? > > > > Thanks, > > Chris > > Hey Chris, > > Try `git log --full-history FILE`. When passing a path to `git log` will > enable history simplification, which might explain why certain commits > are not shown. > > Kind regards, Kevin. Yes that shows the commit in question. Based on the description of the default mode that actually makes sense. The change in question was a removal, but there was a merge of another branch that never contained the code that was removed. So the simplest history involves commits from the branch that never contained the change I was after.
