On 11/9/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > In fact, even at the top-of-tree, "git log" and "git log ." are two > > totally different things [...] > > Btw, the reason (and really the *only* reason) this is interesting at all > is just to show that the notion of "full history" and "relative pathnames" > really have nothing to do with each other. They really are in totally > different and orthogonal dimensions. Should "git log" and "git log path" have two different command names? > "Full history" is something that exist *independently* of the pathnames. > > So the fact is, "git log" on its own is really about the *project*. It is > totally pathname-independent, and I'd argue that many people are often > just interested in the explanations (even though you obviously can also > see the patches and the files changed too!) so I seriously doubt that this > is just an implementation issue or my personal hang-up. > > In other words "git log" simply is something *global*. It doesn't matter > where in the tree you are, the end result is the same - it's about the > project as a whole. > > In contrast, "git log <filename>" is fundamentally different. Now you're > explicitly stating that it's not something global any more, and that it's > about the *files*. That's also why "git log" and "git log ." are acually > different even at the top level. > > Because when you're interested in the files, by implication you're not > interested in commits that don't change the files - and there can be such > commits even when you give the *total* file list. > > Linus > -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx - 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
