Jonathan Nieder <[email protected]> writes:
> 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.
Same laziness here, as I never actually use show-branch. However,
you're right, I missed that it also has --topo-order (with a much saner
message). So I think we can safely assume that it's the same meaning as
for git-log:
> - 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".
Depending on how you look at it, the lines of development are kept
together purely by coincidence or algorithmic convenience...
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
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
