Re: Managing multiple branches in git

On Jun 2, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> A back-branch-only fix would look the same except for not having any
> unannotated filenames.  I'm too lazy to go trolling for one just now.

God Tom, you're such a bloody slacker. Sheesh!

> It's also possible to get it to produce histories that include only
> the patches on particular branches.
>
> I'm not by any means wedded to the details of this printout format;  
> it's
> kinda ugly in fact.  The point that I want to make is that I can  
> look at
> the commit history in a summary form that just shows me the commit  
> message,
> date/time/committer, affected file(s) and branch(es), and is not picky
> about whether the changes were byte-for-byte the same in each branch
> (because they hardly ever are).  The project's entire commit history
> for, hm, probably the last ten years is specifically designed to be
> able to get this type of report out of the repository, and we're going
> to be pretty seriously unhappy if git is not able to replicate this
> functionality.

I should think that it'd be pretty damned easy to generate such a  
report from a Git repository's log. `git log` is extremely powerful,  
and provides a lot of interfaces for hooking things in and sorting.  
It's eminently do-able.

Best,

David