Re: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 03.09.2015 19:13: > Michael J Gruberwrites: > >>> Is the design of your independent implementation the same except >>> that 'o' is used instead of 'x'? Independent implementation does >>> not make the same design magically better, if that is the case ;-) >> >> Interestingly, the patch to the tests lists * to o changes only, no < or >>> to o. > > Well, in that case, then the opposite but an equivalent problem > exists in the design, no? It promises to make roots stand out by > painting them as 'o', but it sometimes fails to do so. In other > words, ... > >> The reason is simply that the patch doesn't change anything for left nor >> right commits. I would say that is the best compromise since it does not >> change the overall layout, provides more information by default and does >> not override information that is requested specifically. > > ... it fails your last criteria. How would it? "--left-right" information is requested specifically and not overridden. Root information is not requested specifically [by the user]. >> If we want to put more information into log --graph simultaneously we >> should really go beyond ASCII and look at how tig does it, e.g. using >> unicode characters. > > That's another way to do so, but shifting columns to show where the > history is not connected also does not change the overall layout, > provides more information by default, etc., and a big plus is that > it would be an approach to do so without having to go beyond ASCII. That would consume more horizontal space and annoy at least some people. Alternatively, we could use more vertical space and annoy at least some (other?) people. In fact, I tend to think that horizontal space is more "precious" than vertical space due to the common orientation of scrolling... If we don't mind an increase in vertical spacing there are more issues that could be solved, for example the merge point description sticking visually to the commits above rather than the merged branch in the typical old..new scenario. In fact, both issues would be solved be adding an extra line after a root commit (be it "real" root or boundary-wise). Michael -- 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: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
Michael J Gruberwrites: > How would it? "--left-right" information is requested specifically and > not overridden. Root information is not requested specifically [by the > user]. If this "highlight root prominently" were a config, then using both config and --left-right would mean one of them needs to give. If this were always on, then the act of the user running "git log" alone is a sign that the user explicitly asked the log to be shown with the new world order, i.e. the root is promised to be shown visible. Either way, the user is not getting what s/he asked. >>> If we want to put more information into log --graph simultaneously we >>> should really go beyond ASCII and look at how tig does it, e.g. using >>> unicode characters. >> >> That's another way to do so, but shifting columns to show where the >> history is not connected also does not change the overall layout, >> provides more information by default, etc., and a big plus is that >> it would be an approach to do so without having to go beyond ASCII. > > That would consume more horizontal space and annoy at least some people. I sense that we are working from different perceptions of what "shifting columns" should look like. A history that reaches two roots would be shown like this, with or without any special treatment for root: * tip |\ | * tip of the side branch * | tip of the trunk * | second of the trunk * | root of the trunk * second of the side branch * root of the side branch so it does not give us any more "wasted space" issue with or without "showing root more prominently". The case where we would see differences is to have two or more totally disjoint histories. But "shifting columns" does not have to draw that case like this: * tip of history A | * tip of history B * | second of history A * | root of history A * second of history B * third of history B * fourth of history B * fifth of history B * root of history B It can do this instead to save horizontal space (which I agree with you is the more precious one than the vertical one): * tip of history A | * tip of history B * | second of history A * | root of history A * second of history B / * third of history B * fourth of history B * fifth of history B * root of history B It does spend more space around the root of each history (in this case, history A) when it shifts the column for history B to the space now vacated by history A in order to save horizontal space. But drawing the graph around the root differently from other parts is exactly to show roots more prominently; it draws the users' eyes. Here is another example of drawing the same history. If the traversal is topologica:, "shifting columns" does not have to draw this: * tip of history A * second of history A * root of history A * tip of history B * second of history B * third of history B * fourth of history B * fifth of history B * root of history B It can do this instead: * tip of history A * second of history A * root of history A * tip of history B / * second of history B * third of history B * fourth of history B * fifth of history B * root of history B Again I am not saying that "shifting columns" is the only way we can do this, and there may be other ways to do this without losing information. Going beyond ASCII as you hinted would be one example. -- 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: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
Michael J Gruberwrites: >> Is the design of your independent implementation the same except >> that 'o' is used instead of 'x'? Independent implementation does >> not make the same design magically better, if that is the case ;-) > > Interestingly, the patch to the tests lists * to o changes only, no < or >> to o. Well, in that case, then the opposite but an equivalent problem exists in the design, no? It promises to make roots stand out by painting them as 'o', but it sometimes fails to do so. In other words, ... > The reason is simply that the patch doesn't change anything for left nor > right commits. I would say that is the best compromise since it does not > change the overall layout, provides more information by default and does > not override information that is requested specifically. ... it fails your last criteria. > If we want to put more information into log --graph simultaneously we > should really go beyond ASCII and look at how tig does it, e.g. using > unicode characters. That's another way to do so, but shifting columns to show where the history is not connected also does not change the overall layout, provides more information by default, etc., and a big plus is that it would be an approach to do so without having to go beyond ASCII. -- 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: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 27.07.2015 22:17: > Antoine Beaupréwrites: > >> Any reason why this patch wasn't included / reviewed? >> ... >>> This patch is similar than the one provided by Milton Soares Filho in >>> 1382734287.31768.1.git.send.email.milton.soares.fi...@gmail.com but was >>> implemented independently and uses the 'o' character instead of 'x'. > > The reason why Milton's patch was not taken after discussion [*1*] > was not because its implementation was poor, but its design was not > good. By overriding '*' '<' or '>' with x, it made it impossible to > distinguish a root on the left side branch and a root on the right > side branch. > > Is the design of your independent implementation the same except > that 'o' is used instead of 'x'? Independent implementation does > not make the same design magically better, if that is the case ;-) Interestingly, the patch to the tests lists * to o changes only, no < or > to o. The reason is simply that the patch doesn't change anything for left nor right commits. I would say that is the best compromise since it does not change the overall layout, provides more information by default and does not override information that is requested specifically. If we want to put more information into log --graph simultaneously we should really go beyond ASCII and look at how tig does it, e.g. using unicode characters. > If the design is different, please explain how your patch solves the > issue with Milton's design in your log message. > > For example, you could use the column arrangement to solve it, e.g. > > History sequence A: a1 -- a2 -- a3 (root-commit) > History sequence B: b1 -- b2 -- b3 (root-commit) > > $ git log --graph --oneline A B > * a1 > * a2 > * a3 > * b1 > * b2 > * b3 > > $ git log --graph --oneline --left-right A...B > < a1 > < a2 > < a3 > > b1 > > b2 > > b3 > > I am not saying that the above would be the only way to do so; there > may be other ways to solve the issue. > > [Reference] > > *1* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/236708/focus=236843 > -- 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: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
Any reason why this patch wasn't included / reviewed? Thanks, A. On 2014-11-10 08:33:32, Antoine Beaupré wrote: For projects with separate history lines and, thus, multiple root-commits, the linear arrangement of `git log --graph --oneline` does not allow the user to spot where the sequence ends, giving the impression that it's a contiguous history. E.g. History sequence A: a1 -- a2 -- a3 (root-commit) History sequence B: b1 -- b2 -- b3 (root-commit) git log --graph --oneline * a1 * a2 * a3 * b1 * b2 * b3 In a GUI tool, the root-commit of each series would stand out on the graph. This modification changes the commit char to a different symbol ('o'), so users of the command-line graph tool can easily identify root-commits and make sense of where each series is limited to. git log --graph --oneline * a1 * a2 o a3 * b1 * b2 o b3 The 'o' character was chosen because it is the same character used in rev-list to mark root commits. This patch is similar than the one provided by Milton Soares Filho in 1382734287.31768.1.git.send.email.milton.soares.fi...@gmail.com but was implemented independently and uses the 'o' character instead of 'x'. Other solutions were discarded for those reasons: * line delimiters: we want to keep one commit per line * tree indentation: it makes little sense with commit trees without common history, and is more complicated to implement Signed-off-by: Antoine Beaupré anar...@koumbit.org --- revision.c | 8 ++-- t/t4202-log.sh | 10 +- t/t6016-rev-list-graph-simplify-history.sh | 14 +++--- 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c index 75dda92..5f21e24 100644 --- a/revision.c +++ b/revision.c @@ -3246,8 +3246,12 @@ char *get_revision_mark(const struct rev_info *revs, const struct commit *commit return ; else return ; - } else if (revs-graph) - return *; + } else if (revs-graph) { + if (commit-parents) + return *; + else + return o; + } else if (revs-cherry_mark) return +; return ; diff --git a/t/t4202-log.sh b/t/t4202-log.sh index 99ab7ca..d11876e 100755 --- a/t/t4202-log.sh +++ b/t/t4202-log.sh @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ cat expect EOF * fourth * third * second -* initial +o initial EOF test_expect_success 'simple log --graph' ' @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ cat expect \EOF |/ * third * second -* initial +o initial EOF test_expect_success 'log --graph with merge' ' @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ cat expect \EOF | | second | -* commit tags/side-1~3 +o commit tags/side-1~3 Author: A U Thor aut...@example.com initial @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ cat expect \EOF * | third |/ * second -* initial +o initial EOF test_expect_success 'log --graph with merge' ' @@ -799,7 +799,7 @@ cat expect \EOF | -one | +ichi | -* commit COMMIT_OBJECT_NAME +o commit COMMIT_OBJECT_NAME Author: A U Thor aut...@example.com initial diff --git a/t/t6016-rev-list-graph-simplify-history.sh b/t/t6016-rev-list-graph-simplify-history.sh index f7181d1..74b6fc3 100755 --- a/t/t6016-rev-list-graph-simplify-history.sh +++ b/t/t6016-rev-list-graph-simplify-history.sh @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ test_expect_success '--graph --all' ' echo |/| expected echo * | $A2 expected echo |/expected - echo * $A1 expected + echo o $A1 expected git rev-list --graph --all actual test_cmp expected actual ' @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ test_expect_success '--graph --simplify-by-decoration' ' echo |/| expected echo * | $A2 expected echo |/expected - echo * $A1 expected + echo o $A1 expected git rev-list --graph --all --simplify-by-decoration actual test_cmp expected actual ' @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ test_expect_success '--graph --simplify-by-decoration prune branch B' ' echo * | $A3 expected echo |/expected echo * $A2 expected - echo * $A1 expected + echo o $A1 expected git rev-list --graph --simplify-by-decoration --all actual test_cmp expected actual ' @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ test_expect_success '--graph --full-history -- bar.txt' ' echo | |/expected echo * | $A3 expected echo |/expected - echo * $A2 expected + echo o $A2 expected git rev-list --graph --full-history --all -- bar.txt actual test_cmp expected actual ' @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ test_expect_success '--graph --full-history --simplify-merges -- bar.txt' ' echo * | $A5 expected echo * | $A3 expected echo |/
Re: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
Antoine Beaupré anar...@koumbit.org writes: Any reason why this patch wasn't included / reviewed? ... This patch is similar than the one provided by Milton Soares Filho in 1382734287.31768.1.git.send.email.milton.soares.fi...@gmail.com but was implemented independently and uses the 'o' character instead of 'x'. The reason why Milton's patch was not taken after discussion [*1*] was not because its implementation was poor, but its design was not good. By overriding '*' '' or '' with x, it made it impossible to distinguish a root on the left side branch and a root on the right side branch. Is the design of your independent implementation the same except that 'o' is used instead of 'x'? Independent implementation does not make the same design magically better, if that is the case ;-) If the design is different, please explain how your patch solves the issue with Milton's design in your log message. For example, you could use the column arrangement to solve it, e.g. History sequence A: a1 -- a2 -- a3 (root-commit) History sequence B: b1 -- b2 -- b3 (root-commit) $ git log --graph --oneline A B * a1 * a2 * a3 * b1 * b2 * b3 $ git log --graph --oneline --left-right A...B a1 a2 a3 b1 b2 b3 I am not saying that the above would be the only way to do so; there may be other ways to solve the issue. [Reference] *1* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/236708/focus=236843 -- 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: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
[administrivia: please avoid culling addresses from To:/Cc: lines] Keshav Kini keshav.k...@gmail.com writes: What about just putting an extra blank line after every root commit line (possibly except the last one)? That should make it plenty easy to see where the root commits are in --oneline mode. I think it would actually be easier to spot at a glance than replacing `*` with `x` because it creates a gap in all columns of the output, rather than only in column 1. Also, this is very subjective but I think it looks kind of ugly to use x :P I agree to all of the above, including the ugliness of 'x' ;-) A blank may however be hard to spot, if the range is limited, though. For example, $ git log --graph --oneline a4.. * HEAD /* a1 | * a2 | * a3 * b1 * b2 * b3 where a4, which is a root, is the sole parent of a3 and HEAD is a merge between a1 and b1 might produce something like this, while we may get this from the same history, when shown unlimited: $ git log --graph --oneline * HEAD /* a1 | * a2 | * a3 | * a4 | * b1 * b2 * b3 A divider line might make it visually a lot more strong, i.e. $ git log --graph --oneline * HEAD /* a1 | * a2 | * a3 | * a4 | ~~~ * b1 * b2 * b3 but I am not sure if it is too distracting. -- 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: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: [administrivia: please avoid culling addresses from To:/Cc: lines] Yikes, sorry about that. I've been sending messages through Gmane rather than via email, and I didn't realize the list didn't automatically send messages to the appropriate people who are only reading the list via actual email (as I am not such a person). Keshav Kini keshav.k...@gmail.com writes: What about just putting an extra blank line after every root commit line (possibly except the last one)? That should make it plenty easy to see where the root commits are in --oneline mode. I think it would actually be easier to spot at a glance than replacing `*` with `x` because it creates a gap in all columns of the output, rather than only in column 1. Also, this is very subjective but I think it looks kind of ugly to use x :P I agree to all of the above, including the ugliness of 'x' ;-) A blank may however be hard to spot, if the range is limited, though. For example, $ git log --graph --oneline a4.. * HEAD /* a1 | * a2 | * a3 * b1 * b2 * b3 where a4, which is a root, is the sole parent of a3 and HEAD is a merge between a1 and b1 might produce something like this, while we may get this from the same history, when shown unlimited: $ git log --graph --oneline * HEAD /* a1 | * a2 | * a3 | * a4 | * b1 * b2 * b3 A divider line might make it visually a lot more strong, i.e. $ git log --graph --oneline * HEAD /* a1 | * a2 | * a3 | * a4 | ~~~ * b1 * b2 * b3 but I am not sure if it is too distracting. I would be fine with that, fwiw. We can also turn it on and off with a config option if people really don't like it, I suppose... -Keshav -- 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: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
On 28 October 2013 13:41, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: I agree to all of the above, including the ugliness of 'x' ;-) A blank may however be hard to spot, if the range is limited, though. For example, A 'x' looks like termination points in some specification languages such as SDL and MSC and thus translates directly to the idea of a root-commit, at least IMO. For sure it does not stand out as blatantly as it should, but it gives a general idea without further distractions, which seems to be the idea of a simple 'git log --graph --oneline'. An idea that have just come to mind is to have a decorator to enforce this property, like this. * HEAD /* a1 | * a2 | * a3 | x a4 (root-commit) * b1 * b2 x b3 (root-commit) This way the user only gets 'distracted' if he explicitly asks for it (--decorate), with all its colors and whatnot. What do you think? Should I aim for it? Besides anything else, this discussion is becoming very subjective. I've received private feedbacks thanking for the changeset and not a word against the poor 'x'. Maybe it's time to talk to a UI designer or let a benevolent dictator set this quarrel off ;-) []s, milton -- 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: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
Milton Soares Filho milton.soares.fi...@gmail.com writes: On 28 October 2013 13:41, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: I agree to all of the above, including the ugliness of 'x' ;-) A blank may however be hard to spot, if the range is limited, though. For example, A 'x' looks like termination points in some specification languages such as SDL and MSC and thus translates directly to the idea of a root-commit, at least IMO. For sure it does not stand out as blatantly as it should, but it gives a general idea without further distractions, which seems to be the idea of a simple 'git log --graph --oneline'. An idea that have just come to mind is to have a decorator to enforce this property, like this. * HEAD /* a1 | * a2 | * a3 | x a4 (root-commit) * b1 * b2 x b3 (root-commit) This way the user only gets 'distracted' if he explicitly asks for it (--decorate), with all its colors and whatnot. What do you think? Should I aim for it? Besides anything else, this discussion is becoming very subjective. If I have to choose, I'd rather avoid using 'x' or anything that have to override '*', not just 'x' being ugly, but the approach to _replace_ the revision-mark (usually '*' but sometimes '', '^', etc) forces us to give priority between root-ness and other kinds of information (e.g. left-ness). That was the primary reason I liked Keshav's suggestion to use one extra line _below_ the root, which will allow us to still keep the existing information unlike what we discussed in our back-and-forth during the initial review. I also think a blank (or divider) below the root commits does make it visually obvious that nothing comes _before_ the root commit in the history, which probably even removes the need to paint the tracks of histories leading to different roots in different colours. I hope the above shows that my reaction was much less subjective than my response sounded ;-) Thanks. -- 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: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
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? /* + * Out-stand parentless commits to enforce non-continuity on subsequent + * but separate series + */ + if (graph-commit-parents == NULL) { + strbuf_addch(sb, 'x'); + return; + } + + /* * get_revision_mark() handles all other cases without assert() */ strbuf_addstr(sb, get_revision_mark(graph-revs, graph-commit)); It is unclear why the update goes to this function. At the first glance, I feel that it would be more sensible to add the equivalent code to get_revision_mark()---we do not have to worry about what else, other than calling get_revision_mark() and adding it to sb, would be skipped by the added return when we later have to update this function and add more code after the existing strbuf_addstr(). 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. Thanks. [Footnote] *1* Note that I am not saying the change the patch introduces is not sufficient and you have to paint the commits in different colors here. I myself think it would be a lot more work to do so, 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. -- 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: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
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[1]. 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 [1]: 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
Re: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series
Milton Soares Filho milton.soares.fi...@gmail.com writes: 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[1]. 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 ;-) I don't think this is that obscure. I've often thought there should be some way to distinguish root commits as well. In fact when dealing with multiple root commits I usually just don't use --oneline and instead use the full --graph view so I can find root commits by grepping for '^ ' :) I should also mention that there are lots of situations where you might see multiple root commits not because there are truly multiple commits with no parent in the repository, but because you're looking at some subgraph of the history graph -- that is, you have multiple commits in your display whose parents are purposely excluded. For example, you might be looking at a revision list like 'C ^A ^B': master | .---B | / `-. O .---`--C | \ / | `---A The commits you were looking at would be these ones: `-. .---`--C / So multiple roots can appear easily in such cases. 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 :-) I'm a bit worried that if someone is parsing `git log --graph` output looking for `*` lines they might suddenly start missing the root commits that they were previously able to find. I mean, not that anyone should be doing that, but if we can avoid breaking that, why not do so? What about just putting an extra blank line after every root commit line (possibly except the last one)? That should make it plenty easy to see where the root commits are in --oneline mode. I think it would actually be easier to spot at a glance than replacing `*` with `x` because it creates a gap in all columns of the output, rather than only in column 1. Also, this is very subjective but I think it looks kind of ugly to use x :P By the by, you might want to use the `-v` argument to `git send-email` so that people reading the list can tell at a glance which patch versions are newer than which other patch versions. -Keshav -- 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