From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] show-branch: fix description of --date-order Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:11:23 +0200 Message-ID: <87ehayqn84.fsf@hexa.v.cablecom.net> References: <8df0d41caa10a38e46783bebd3148a7b8445dd47.1373966389.git.trast@inf.ethz.ch> <8768923c2d317d02beabbf1bff2f61927e126f81.1373966389.git.trast@inf.ethz.ch> <20130716182254.GL14690@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: , Ralf Thielow , Jan =?utf-8?Q?Kr=C3=BCger?= , Christian Stimming To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 16 22:11:33 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UzBas-0005o7-Ny for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:11:31 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933532Ab3GPUL0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:11:26 -0400 Received: from edge10.ethz.ch ([82.130.75.186]:34428 "EHLO edge10.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933133Ab3GPULZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:11:25 -0400 Received: from CAS12.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.212) by edge10.ethz.ch (82.130.75.186) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:11:22 +0200 Received: from hexa.v.cablecom.net.ethz.ch (46.126.8.85) by CAS12.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:11:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20130716182254.GL14690@google.com> (Jonathan Nieder's message of "Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:22:54 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) X-Originating-IP: [46.126.8.85] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jonathan Nieder 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