Re: git trees which are not yet in linux-next

[Stefan Richter]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:12:06 -0700
> > > > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/