1 |
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 07:17:26PM +0400, Jason Zaman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 12:03:29PM +0700, C Bergström wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
4 |
> > > C Bergström posted on Sun, 05 Jul 2015 01:17:41 +0700 as excerpted: |
5 |
> > > |
6 |
> > >> I super don't like "merge" workflows. |
7 |
> > >> 1) "merge commits" are confusing at best and normal tools don't display |
8 |
> > >> and work with them as you'd always expect |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > git log --graph, as others have mentioned. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > we are not talking about the same thing. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > I want to see the "diff" - not the graph. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > svn diff -r 1234 |
17 |
> > git show <hash> |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > show me the "merge" commit in diff format |
20 |
> |
21 |
> So this isn't a good comparison. You are asking for a merge commit in |
22 |
> git and a normal commit in svn. Svn can branch but it is so complicated |
23 |
> that no one ever does it. If you were similarly to never ever make |
24 |
> branches in git its not a huge deal. (There are not *that* many pushes |
25 |
> to the tree, if you look at #gentoo-commits there is plenty of time |
26 |
> between commits.) |
27 |
> |
28 |
> While I personally rebase almost all of my stuff, merges are important |
29 |
> when taking contributions. A good example would be the main linux kernel |
30 |
> tree, if Linus were to merge everything it would be incredibly difficult |
31 |
> to figure anything out. |
32 |
|
33 |
I'm with Duncan on this. I think I understand what he's asking for... |
34 |
|
35 |
I think he is asking the question, "What changed in commit <hash>". |
36 |
|
37 |
If you use the hash of a merge commit with "git show", you get nothing, so |
38 |
the merge commit is useless in terms of following changes. |
39 |
|
40 |
William |