Re: merging emacs-24

[Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 09:33:47 +0100
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
>> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> >> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:56:15 +0100
>> >> 
>> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > If that's not true, how do I tell which commits in the linear list
>> >> > shown by "git log" were made on master, and which were committed to
>> >> > emacs-24 and later merged?
>> >> 
>> >> By looking from which branch they are reachable.
>> >
>> > How do I do that?
>> 
>> If "git merge-base A B" outputs (the SHA1 of) B then you know that B is
>> reachable by A.  Another way to visualize this is to use "git
>> show-branch A B".
>
> Yes, OK.  Thanks.  I think "git log --graph" and "C-x v L" are also
> fine.

As was already said in earlier discussions, something like this is
probably most close to what you seem to expect from "git log":

$ git log --source --oneline orignin/master origin/emacs-24

> My point was that just "git log" does not provide that info,

Sure it doesn't provide that info by default. "git log" is simply
"starting from HEAD, go back through the DAG and show every commit." To
be fast, it doesn't even try (by default) to figure out from which
/other/ references any of listed commits are reachable.

> although (unlike bzr) it does by default show the commits from merged
> branches.

The fact that it "shows the commits from merged brahcnes" is a
side-effect of its simple default definition of showing all reachable
commits. That, e.g., makes it trivial (and fast) to see if given commit,
say git:ef97653, is "included" in any given release, say, rel-3.4.8:

$ git log --oneline rel-3.4.8 | grep ef97653

-- 
Sergey.