On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:37:13PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > We should figure out how log -g should behave in this case (the behaviour > you're seeing clearly isn't desirable) and then fix it. > Please file an issue.
Oh, and if you can, please write a small script (attached to the issue) or test case (patch for our test suite) that shows the problem, by triggering a single revision to appear too many times in log -g output. That would help people who would like to investigate get started. Thanks, Stefan
