Thomas Rast wrote:
> The existing description reads as if it somehow applies a filter.
> Change it to explain that it is merely about the ordering.
[...]
> OPT_SET_INT(0, "date-order", &sort_order,
> - N_("show commits where no parent comes before its "
> + N_("sort commits such that no parent comes before
> its "
> "children"),
> REV_SORT_BY_COMMIT_DATE),
I fear this wording tweak doesn't go far enough. The above
description seems to describe --topo-order just as well as
--date-order.
How about something like
N_("topologically sort, maintaining date order where possible"),
? I haven't checked the code to see if that's accurate, though.
Is the idea that:
- by default, commits are listed in commit date order (newest first)
- with --topo-order, they are topologically sorted in such a way as
to ensure that in cases like
---1---2---4---7
\ \
3---5---6---8
(from git-log(1)), parallel tracks are not interleaved
- with --date-order, they are topologically sorted but less
aggressively, in particular matching commit date order in the
usual case that that is already topologically sorted.
That would make --topo-order stronger than "show commits in
topological order" --- it should say something like "sort trying to
avoid breaking up lines of development".
--
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
