On 25 October 2013 15:13, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> Milton Soares Filho <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> git log --graph --oneline
>> * a1
>> * a2
>> x a3
>> * b1
>> * b2
>> x b3
>
> I agree that the problem you are trying to solve is a good thing to
> tackle, and I also agree that marking a root commit differently from
> other commits is one way to solve it, but I am not sure if that is
> the best way. If the stretches of a's and b's in your history are
> very long, wouldn't it be easier to spot if they are painted in
> different colours, in addition to or instead of marking the roots
> differently [*1*], for example?
Thanks for taking your time reviewing this patch, Junio. I didn't really thought
it would get any attention since multiple root-commits is not a very common
use-case[1]. However, if most people got excited with git-subtree new
features as I did, there is a good chance that multiple root-commits are
going to become a common-place in the near future ;-)
That said, I completely agree that painting with different colors would be
a much better fix, however I believe that it can be done in a separate
changeset by someone that understands better the impact on the rest
of the system. Personally, changing only the mark is sufficient because:
a) it'll work on terminal types without coloring support and configurations
whose explicitly disable it
b) it'll spare myself of running a separate GUI program just
to spot where each series begin
c) it won't require any visual design skills from a developer (me)
without a minimal sense for it :-)
By the way, is there a visual or design guideline document for building
decorated log graphs? From where comes the inspiration of it?
> The change implemented your way will lose other information when a
> root commit is at the boundary, marked as uninteresting, or on the
> left/right side of traversal (when --left-right is requested). I
> think these pieces of information your patch seems to be losing are
> a lot more relevant than "have we hit the root?", especially in the
> majority of repositories where there is only one root commit.
Nice. I'll try to move the logic into get_revision_mark() and hope
the priority on handling it is better suited.
> [...]
> and I even suspect that it may be asking for the moon---you may not
> even know what root "a1" (and "b1") came from when you are showing
> these commits without first digging down to the roots and then
> walking the history backwards, which may not be practically
> feasible.
It'd be nice to figure out a test-case to emerge it.
[]s, milton
[1]: In git repository itself I could find only seven of them (root-commis)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
