No. The summary is that *you* are confused.
The fact is, "git log" always has given the whole log, and there is no
confusion at all. The only people who may be confused are people who
misread the documentation on purpose, or who came from some broken other
SCM, and are confused just because of *that*.
Git makes it very clear indeed at all points that it tracks whole history.
It's a big deal. We *make* a big deal about it, and "git log" follows that
very consistently.
In fact, even at the top-of-tree, "git log" and "git log ." are two
totally different things, even if in practice the differences are often
hard to see. But one gives the "full history", and the other gives the
"simplified history for the pathnames given", and the two are REALLY
REALLY different.
Try it. Do
git log origin/pu > full
git log origin/pu . > limited
in the git tree, and look at the differences (it might be useful to use
gitk instead, and look at where the differences start! That visual
difference is going to give you a lot more of an "Ahaa!" moment when you
understand it). When you can explain and understand those differences,
then you *really* understand git (and quite frankly, it's actually rather
simple, but you have to really *think* about what those things things
are).
Now, for normal use you never need to really to care. Git does a lot of
things, and some random user will seldom need the full power of git, nor
do they need to really care about why "git log ." and "git log" are
actually not the same thing at all, even at the top level.
But you're blaming git for your *own* confusion, which probably comes from
crap systems that don't even know what "history" is because they can't
really track it right anyway.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
