On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> writes: > >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:10:49PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >>> On 2015-06-29 18:46, Lawrence Siebert wrote: >>> >>> > I appreciate your help. Okay, That all makes sense. >>> > >>> > I would note that something like: >>> > git shortlog -s "$FILENAME: | cut -f 1 | paste -sd+ - | bc >>> > >>> > seems like it run much faster then: >>> > >>> > git log --oneline "$FILENAME" | wc -l >>> >>> How does it compare to `git rev-list -- "$FILENAME" | wc -l`? >> >> Or even `git rev-list --count HEAD -- "$FILENAME"`. > > Ahh, OK. I didn't know we already had "rev-list --count". > > Then please disregard the suggestion to add the option to "log"; it > still holds true that the option does not belong to "shortlog", but > I do think "how many changes were made to this path" statistics > driven by a script should use "rev-list" plumbing, and if it already > has "--count" option, that is perfect ;-) > > Thanks. > > > Junio,
I think, respectfully, there is still a benefit to adding it as a feature to "log", in that more Git users know of and use "log" than "rev-list". I hadn't heard of "rev-list" before joining this mailing list. That means "log --count" will get used more. That also means that more eyeballs will hit --count with bug reports and better tests; I've already seen 2-3 suggestions for "log --count" tests that "rev-list --count" also doesn't have tests for. I would like to keep working on implementing "log --count", sharing code with rev-list where possible so they both are improved, unless you are saying you won't merge. Thanks, Lawrence -- About Me: http://about.me/lawrencesiebert Constantly Coding: http://constantcoding.blogspot.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
