On 25 October 2013 15:13, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Milton Soares Filho <milton.soares.fi...@gmail.com> 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. 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 : 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html