Subject: Re: Can't find the revelant commit with git-log

From: Francis Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:56:57 +0100

Johannes Sixt <[email-masked]> writes:

> Please don't set Mail-Followup-To; it's disliked on this list.

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know why, since it has no annoyance
for those who are replying to my emails.

>
>
> Am 1/26/2011 9:36, schrieb Francis Moreau:
>> I tried to reproduce something similar but with a far more simple repo:
>> 
>> 
>> <v2.6.28> 1.f o
>>               |
>>           1.e o (merge)
>>               | \
>>           1.d o  o 2.c (merge)
>>               |  | \
>>           1.c o  o  o 3.a "Remove blacklist_iommu()"
>>               |  | /
>>               |  o 2.a
>>               | /
>>           1.b o
>>               |
>> <v2.6.27> 1.a o "Introduce blacklist_iommu()"
>>               |
>>               o Init
>> 
>> Basically this repo 3 branches: master, 2, 3. Master branch introduces
>> the "blacklist_iommu()" function with commit 1.a, and branch "3" removes
>> it at commit 3.a.
>> ...
>> So in this case there's no need to pass the '-m' flag and git-log(1), by
>> default walks through all the commits:
>
> To reproduce the real history, you have to modify your example in three ways:
>
> 1. 2.a must be forked off of Init, not 1.b; i.e., this commit does not
> contain "blacklist_iommu".
>
> 2. Drop the side branch that removes the word. (Drop at least the commit.)
>
> 3. The merge 1.e (which resembles d847059) must be modified such that it
> takes the contents of 2.c rather than 1.d.
>
> IOW, "blacklist_iommu" is not removed explicitly by a commit, but rather
> by a merge of one branch that has it and another one that doesn't have it.
>
> Look closely at d847059: The commit message hints at a conflict in
> intel_iommu.c,

But how did you find out d847059 ?

Did you use René's method ?

Thanks
-- 
Francis