* 'git log' numbering commits?
@ 2012-04-12 7:54 Daniel Wagner
2012-04-12 8:41 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Wagner @ 2012-04-12 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Hi,
I have a stupid question I could not answer myself when reading the
excellent documentation.
My workflow involves a lot of "git rebase -i". For figuring out which
commit id to use I do first a 'git log --oneline'. Then I do copy past
the id to the 'git rebase -i'. The reason why I don't use relative
id such as HEAD~4, because I keep miscounting the commits.
So my question is there a magic option to have git log to enumerate the
commits, e.g.
1: 2fcd2b3 network: Remove unused function
2: b376b2a session: Fix introspection for Change()
3: 15c9cd0 wifi: Refactor desctruction of network object
4: a9c699f network: Remove device pointer in network_remove()
[...]
cheers,
daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: 'git log' numbering commits?
2012-04-12 7:54 'git log' numbering commits? Daniel Wagner
@ 2012-04-12 8:41 ` Jeff King
2012-04-12 9:15 ` Daniel Wagner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2012-04-12 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Wagner; +Cc: git
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:54:12AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> My workflow involves a lot of "git rebase -i". For figuring out which
> commit id to use I do first a 'git log --oneline'. Then I do copy past
> the id to the 'git rebase -i'. The reason why I don't use relative
> id such as HEAD~4, because I keep miscounting the commits.
>
> So my question is there a magic option to have git log to enumerate the
> commits, e.g.
>
> 1: 2fcd2b3 network: Remove unused function
> 2: b376b2a session: Fix introspection for Change()
> 3: 15c9cd0 wifi: Refactor desctruction of network object
> 4: a9c699f network: Remove device pointer in network_remove()
No, there is no such feature. You can do this:
git log --oneline | nl "-s: "
but that will just give you the count of commits shown. If the history
is not a single line of development, then those numbers will become
meaningless quickly. Also note that there is an off-by-one in this
scheme; HEAD~2 will be numbered as "3".
If you wanted to simply decorate each commit with a more readable name,
you could do this:
git log --format='%H: %s' |
git name-rev --stdin --name-only
though for simplicity, you may find that you prefer to name only based on
the current tip. You can do that like this:
git log --format='%H: %s' |
git name-rev --stdin --name-only \
--refs `git symbolic-ref HEAD`
which yields output like:
your-topic: network: Remove unused function
your-topic~1: session: Fix introspection for Change()
your-topic~2: wifi: Refactor desctruction of network object
your-topic~3: network: Remove device pointer in network_remove()
However, if you really just want this to make "rebase -i" easier, have
you considered setting the upstream branch config for your branches?
When I create a topic branch, I do:
git checkout -b topic origin/master
And then "git rebase -i @{upstream}" rebases everything up to my
upstream branch (origin/master). That may be slightly more than I want,
but it lets me see the whole series in the "rebase -i" sequencer. Recent
versions of git even default to "@{upstream}", so you can just say "git rebase
-i".
How do you usually create your branches? What version of git are you
using (the "@{upstream}" default is in v1.7.6 and later)?
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: 'git log' numbering commits?
2012-04-12 8:41 ` Jeff King
@ 2012-04-12 9:15 ` Daniel Wagner
2012-04-12 18:14 ` Philippe Vaucher
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Wagner @ 2012-04-12 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: git
Hi Jeff,
On 12.04.2012 10:41, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:54:12AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>
>> My workflow involves a lot of "git rebase -i". For figuring out which
>> commit id to use I do first a 'git log --oneline'. Then I do copy past
>> the id to the 'git rebase -i'. The reason why I don't use relative
>> id such as HEAD~4, because I keep miscounting the commits.
>>
>> So my question is there a magic option to have git log to enumerate the
>> commits, e.g.
>>
>> 1: 2fcd2b3 network: Remove unused function
>> 2: b376b2a session: Fix introspection for Change()
>> 3: 15c9cd0 wifi: Refactor desctruction of network object
>> 4: a9c699f network: Remove device pointer in network_remove()
>
> No, there is no such feature. You can do this:
>
> git log --oneline | nl "-s: "
Obviously, I tend to forget the power of the pipes :)
> but that will just give you the count of commits shown. If the history
> is not a single line of development, then those numbers will become
> meaningless quickly. Also note that there is an off-by-one in this
> scheme; HEAD~2 will be numbered as "3".
>
> If you wanted to simply decorate each commit with a more readable name,
> you could do this:
>
> git log --format='%H: %s' |
> git name-rev --stdin --name-only
>
> though for simplicity, you may find that you prefer to name only based on
> the current tip. You can do that like this:
>
> git log --format='%H: %s' |
> git name-rev --stdin --name-only \
> --refs `git symbolic-ref HEAD`
>
> which yields output like:
>
> your-topic: network: Remove unused function
> your-topic~1: session: Fix introspection for Change()
> your-topic~2: wifi: Refactor desctruction of network object
> your-topic~3: network: Remove device pointer in network_remove()
Didn't know about name-ref. Very cool :)
> However, if you really just want this to make "rebase -i" easier, have
> you considered setting the upstream branch config for your branches?
> When I create a topic branch, I do:
Maybe I should have mentioned that on those project I am mostly working,
we don't have branches (ConnMan, BlueZ, oFono). So we have a very simple
history.
> git checkout -b topic origin/master
>
> And then "git rebase -i @{upstream}" rebases everything up to my
> upstream branch (origin/master). That may be slightly more than I want,
> but it lets me see the whole series in the "rebase -i" sequencer. Recent
> versions of git even default to "@{upstream}", so you can just say "git rebase
> -i".
The main reason I avoided branches is that I have several topics at the
same time and having a single branch and maintaining them by hand was so
far easier.
> How do you usually create your branches? What version of git are you
> using (the "@{upstream}" default is in v1.7.6 and later)?
Normally I only have for big changes branches but for a few independent
fixed I just use the master branch and fix the patches. But I see, I
should over think my workflow here :)
I am using git trunk :) I'll try the @{upstream} trick.
Thanks a lot for this elaborate answer.
cheers,
daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: 'git log' numbering commits?
2012-04-12 9:15 ` Daniel Wagner
@ 2012-04-12 18:14 ` Philippe Vaucher
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Vaucher @ 2012-04-12 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Wagner; +Cc: Jeff King, git
> I am using git trunk :) I'll try the @{upstream} trick.
Not sure if it helps, but I use something that is somewhat easier to
remember for me (specifying the upstream manualy):
git rebase -i origin/master
Philippe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-04-12 18:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-04-12 7:54 'git log' numbering commits? Daniel Wagner
2012-04-12 8:41 ` Jeff King
2012-04-12 9:15 ` Daniel Wagner
2012-04-12 18:14 ` Philippe Vaucher
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.