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

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

            \           \

   (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
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to