Show branch names with "git log --graph --oneline --decorate" when it takes a filename-CodePudding

Background

Our team uses a git repository on GitLab to store source files of a product.
We are using a git-flow-like branch model to commit and merge changes to the repository.
I found that some feature branches are not merged unintentionally. Also, there are some feature branches that should be deleted like:
- Branches that merged to the develop branch successfully and not deleted yet
- Branches that abandoned (because they can't be merged successfully)
I want to distinguish branches that should be merged from ones that should be deleted.

What I want to do

To confirm that all the necessary changes are merged to the develop branch successfully, I am trying to show a merge graph per file like this:

git log --graph --all --oneline --decorate=full develop -- ./path/to/a/file

And if there is a file that forked and not merged like this, I want to ask the owner of the file to merge or delete the branch that contains that file.

* 4151fa9 Commit Message 4
| * 8dc5658 Commit Message 3
* | d579006 Commit Message 2
|/  
* 4df043a Commit Message 1

Problem

I want to know the name of the branch that forked and not merged (8dc5658 in above), but git log --graph --oneline --decorate doesn't show the branch name if it takes a file name as its argument.

What I want to get as the result of git log --graph --all --oneline --decorate=full develop -- ./path/to/a/file is like this:

* 4151fa9 (HEAD -> develop) Commit Message 4
| * 8dc5658 (branch-abandoned) Commit Message 3
* | d579006 Commit Message 2
|/  
* 4df043a Commit Message 1

Question

How can I show the branch name in the result of git log --graph --oneline --decorate when it takes a file name as its argument?

Note that you can show an original branch for a commit with git branch --contains COMMIT, but it's difficult to identify commits to pass to git branch --contains from a commit graph (4151fa9 and 8dc5658 in the above) for each file in the repository.

CodePudding user response：

To confirm that all the necessary changes are merged to the develop branch successfully you can use double-dot syntax, ex.

git log master..experiment

If you have get a list of commits that means that you have commits in your experiment branch that hasn’t yet been merged into your master branch and if you don't get any commit in the output means that the master branch has all the commits that the experiment has. For more details see https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Revision-Selection Double Dot part.

CodePudding user response：

Try adding --simplify-by-decoration :

# note : if you use '--all', you don't need to add 'develop'
git log --graph --all --oneline --simplify-by-decoration -- path/to/a/file

you will get :

all commits that are tagged with a branch or a tag (or any ref actually)
and all commits that modify in some way path/to/a/file

If you don't want to see all the possible refs drawn in your graph, you may use --decorate-refs :

# will only show local branches :
git log ... --decorate-refs=refs/heads

# will only show 'origin/master' and local tags :
git log ... --decorate-refs=refs/remotes/origin/master --decorate-refs=refs/tags