On 08/16/2012 10:51 AM, Thomas Rast wrote:
is misleading.  I suppose the real problem is that the "true" ordering
is completely obvious as the one ordering that does not require
preprocessing, but ugly to specify in words.  Perhaps we can bikeshed a
little?  How about

   By default, commits are shown in an order that coincides with
   `--date-order` on well-behaved history, but is faster to compute.

Maybe the problem is not the description of the options, but the options themselves. Why does the behavior default to some mysterious order that we don't even want to document? Only for the sake of computational efficiency. This is the tail wagging the dog.

Why not turn the behavior on its head:

* Change the default behavior to be something well-defined, easy to document, and convenient for humans, such as "topological order with ties broken by timestamp" or "approximate timestamp order, but respecting dependencies".

* Add a new option, --arbitrary-order, that explicitly chooses efficiency instead of a defined order.

That way the easiest thing to type is also the most convenient, whereas when you care about efficiency and *don't* care about order (i.e., mainly in scripts) you can explicitly request the high-performance option.


Michael Haggerty

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

Reply via email to