Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 03 May 2008 10:46:39 +0200 | From | Stefan Richter <> | Subject | Re: git trees which are not yet in linux-next |
| |
Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:12:06 -0700 >>>> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The first >>>>> problem is working out "how the heck did that patch get into >>>>> linux-next"? That would be much easier if the signoff trail was >>>>> complete for git-based >>>>> patches, but it often is not. >>>> doh. I'm pulling linux-next's constituent trees independently, so if I >>>> spot a turd in linux-next I can just grep the various git trees to >>>> find out >>>> where it came from. ... > Poke through the man pages, particularly git-log, and tell it to spit > out the committer info, then. It's in there. > > For example, > > git log --pretty=full ...
Of course some committers have more than one tree in -next. So if Andrew wants to know the actual tree, the laziest method which I know of is $ gitk <commit_id>
Among else, gitk shows which branches contain the commit. (How to do this without X GUI?) -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--- -=-= ---== http://arcgraph.de/sr/
| |