Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] graph: indent visual roots in graph

[Mirko Faina <mroik@delayed.space>]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2026 at 11:26:27AM +0530, Chandra Pratap wrote:
> Tying graph-drawing logic to specific formatting flags could introduce
> inconsistencies. For example, if a user relies on a custom format like
> --format="%h %s", the output is functionally single-line and suffers
> from the exact same ambiguity, but it would miss the fix.
> 
> Even in multi-line formats, relying on the absence of a '|' character to spot
> unrelated commits requires active effort. Indentation provides an immediate
> visual cue that breaks the vertical lineage, which is helpful regardless of the
> commit message length.
> 
> I agree with Pablo: for users who strictly want the old behavior, an opt-out
> flag keeps the graph logic decoupled from the formatting logic.

In that case, together with --[no]-graph-indent, a configuration
variable like "graph.indent" could be introduced to reduce the usage of
--[no]-graph-indent for those that would like to retain the old
behaviour for most formats.

> > > Apart from having an option to disable indentation.
> > >
> > > We could have the cascading to have a limit or make it zig-zag:
> > >
> > > instead of:
> > >
> > > A
> > >   B
> > >     C
> > >       D
> > >
> > > We could do:
> > >
> > > A
> > >   B
> > > C
> > >   D
> > >
> > > This would have its own edge cases like:
> > >
> > > A
> > >   B
> > > C <- if we zig-zag here C and D become ambiguous, currently we are
> > > D    indenting only the last commits (visual roots) here we would have
> > > D    to chose between continuing cascading or indenting the first of D.
> > >
> > > I'm not so sure if I like the zig-zag solution because we need to think again
> > > if it causes an ambiguity, but I wanted to mention it.
> > >
> > > I think we need some more opinions about the design.
> >
> > I don't dislike the the current solution but I can see it degenerating
> > if someone contributes a lot of one-patch series.
> >
> > Maybe you could indent commits that are both head and tail up to two
> > levels and then on the third go back to the beginning of the line. That
> > way you kind of have a zig-zag but without ambiguity. You'd only have to
> > add a counter to keep track of the level of indentation.
> 
> Not sure about this. A zig-zag pattern visually mimics branching and
> merging, which makes unrelated commits look like a complex merge topology.
> 
> I also have a feeling that this will end up recreating the exact ambiguity this
> patch series is trying to fix.

While a zig-zag pattern might be ambiguous, what I proposed is a little
different.

What I proposed is effectively a wrapping for anything that goes beyond
two levels of indentation. I don't think it would look anything like a
fork/merge pattern.

* A
  * B
    * C
* D
  * E
    * F

The difference between two indentation levels and no indentation is very
noticeble, I don't think anyone confused this. This would fix the
staircase pattern on adjacent one-patch series.