Re: A better git log --graph?
On 01/08/2015 08:52 AM, Kyle J. McKay wrote: Since --graph is text-based, this response may not be on-topic hence no cc: to the list. I see --graph as an important tool to get an overview on how the development is being done. I don't mind having a graphical tool for the job, and I was even suggesting if there was a graphviz-based tool that could do a better job. I have a couple of projects where we made heavy use of topic branches, cherrypicks and whatnot. Not the best way to work, but I realized I just needed a graphical overview of the layout to streamline a bit the development. I normally use tig, but the drawn graph, even when turning on bar drawing, is really poor. I assume that you've tried gitk? It has a graphic viewer for the log, but I also find it difficult to tell what's going on in its graph although it's somewhat better than the --graph graph. It does not parse --graph output. I usually never use frontends. The notable exception is tig when I want to get a feeling of the status of several branches and/or blame some files. It haves a lot of typing. That being said, I tried gitk, but assumed it was also parsing --graph layout. Now looking again, I notice some differencies, but it doesn't give me a better picture. A better repository to view it on is the scons mirror (http://repo.or.cz/scons ) as it doesn't have nearly the number of branches/merges as Git (direct link is http://repo.or.cz/git-browser/by-commit.html?r=scons.git ). It's better, but still not something I would feel like using. Github's network graph is a bit better in my mind, but it also has his own share of problems, namely trying his own logic to reduce the height of the graph recyling the row for multiple branches. However, I find its graphs much easier to grok as it draws --first- parent links in a much thicker line style and they stay the same color so it's very easy to see forks, merges and where a fork was re-merged into a main branch. Yes, this does make a lot of difference when just looking at it. It immediately becomes much more apparent. I'm wondering if just turning on the bold attribute in --graph --color would help improve the output. P.S. I'm not 100%, but I think that fossil shows the kinds of graphs you're looking for (see a sample at http://sqlite.org/src/timeline?y=cin=200 ) -- each branch head stays in the same column and non-first-parent links are thinner lines. Now that's *really* readable for me! Isn't it? I never used fossil so this is the first time I see it. The symbols are really well chosen as well. Can we have something like this in git? It might entirely be that it breaks for 200 branches, but hell, for smaller projects it's a boon. P.P.S. In any case if this isn't too much off-topic for your original message, feel free to include any parts of the above message in a reply to the list. It was very helpful, so it's done. -- 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
Re: A better git log --graph?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Yuri D'Elia wav...@thregr.org wrote: [snip] I usually never use frontends. The notable exception is tig when I want to get a feeling of the status of several branches and/or blame some files. It haves a lot of typing. That being said, I tried gitk, but assumed it was also parsing --graph layout. Try gitk --date-order. I find it gives me the picture I really want to see. I've aliased it to git k in my gitconfig because I find it very valuable. -John -- 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
Re: A better git log --graph?
On 01/07/2015 04:47 PM, Johan Herland wrote: Have you looked at git show-branch --all? I didn't. Helpful, but I need to get used to the output. The first impression after looking at some random repository histories is that it's still not what I had in mind, though. -- 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
Re: A better git log --graph?
Johan Herland jo...@herland.net writes: Have you looked at git show-branch --all? ...Johan Yeah, sounds vaguely like it. Its display certainly is easier to read while the set of branches you have is minimum and everything fits in a window; that is exactly why I wrote it back when the branches I was handling were toy-sized (I am not saying Git itself was toy-sized---the work-in-progress on top of Git I was doing was). On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Yuri D'Elia wav...@thregr.org wrote: Hi everyone, git log --graph is hard for me to parse mentally when developing a project which has a lot of branches. All the tools I've been using seem to just parse log --graph's output, and thus are no better at showing history. I would love to have a graph mode where each branch is assigned a column, and stays there. If my log section shows the history of 3 branches, column 1 should always refer to master, 2 to the hypothetical development branch and 3 to feature. Of course the mode will waste more horizontal space, but it would be immediately more apparent which branch is merging into which. I saw this idea proposed a couple of times in the mailing list, but I saw no action behind the proposal. Since I don't have time to work on it, has anyone already started some work that he would like to share as a starting point? Even just to have a felling if it's worth the effort. Does anybody know of another tool to graph the history using something that is not based on git log --graph? I've seen a couple of graphviz-based ones, but both failed to work out of the box for me. Thanks a lot for any pointer. -- 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 -- 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
Re: A better git log --graph?
Have you looked at git show-branch --all? ...Johan On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Yuri D'Elia wav...@thregr.org wrote: Hi everyone, git log --graph is hard for me to parse mentally when developing a project which has a lot of branches. All the tools I've been using seem to just parse log --graph's output, and thus are no better at showing history. I would love to have a graph mode where each branch is assigned a column, and stays there. If my log section shows the history of 3 branches, column 1 should always refer to master, 2 to the hypothetical development branch and 3 to feature. Of course the mode will waste more horizontal space, but it would be immediately more apparent which branch is merging into which. I saw this idea proposed a couple of times in the mailing list, but I saw no action behind the proposal. Since I don't have time to work on it, has anyone already started some work that he would like to share as a starting point? Even just to have a felling if it's worth the effort. Does anybody know of another tool to graph the history using something that is not based on git log --graph? I've seen a couple of graphviz-based ones, but both failed to work out of the box for me. Thanks a lot for any pointer. -- 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 -- Johan Herland, jo...@herland.net www.herland.net -- 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
