William Hubbs wrote: > I think I understand what he's asking for... > > I think he is asking the question, "What changed in commit <hash>". > > If you use the hash of a merge commit with "git show", you get nothing, > so the merge commit is useless in terms of following changes.
I have explained why merge commits are often empty and what you need to ask the Git data model for in order to view each of the changes that lead up to the merge commit. There is even a shorthand for it; the ^ suffix: git show mergecommit^1 shows the last commit on the first branch, git show mergecommit^2 shows the last commit on the second branch, etc. Understanding the Git data model is critical in order to wrap head around the fact that a merge commit ideally does *not* contain any modifications. Modifications (patches if you will) come before the merge commit, on the respective merged branches. C Bergström wrote: > I have responded to every point - 1 by 1, but the "passionate people" > (most polite term I can find) Nice one! I knew you too could do subtle insults. > haven't addressed most of the "problems" or why commit reordering > is a particular problem in gentoo's typical case. Me and others have actually explained the problems exhaustively. I don't know why you don't understand the explanations and you don't say why, so we arrive at a halt. That's fine, the thread is just treading water anyway. :) Kind regards //Peter
